Everyone seems to think that each new list invalidates the previous one, and that it’s the final word. I think the S&S poll is more of a living document, that they should all be viewed in relation to each other. They are not a definitive ranking of cinema, but a historical record of what what considered important or great at the time they were published. One list in isolation is interesting, and has some incredible films. But all the lists together are much more useful and illuminating. It’s the same thing with having recent films on there. The list has films that have stood the test of time, but it also has what it’s considered important and vital NOW. And it’s not like earlier lists didn’t have recent films on it. The very first poll has Bicycle Thieves at the top spot, a mere 4 years after it came out. Tl;dr Art is subjective and any attempt to objectively qualify it is misguided, but several attempts over a period of time can be very illuminating.


This is the correct answer. The 2022 poll shows us what are NOW considered the greatest films, this poll has no bearing on the last or the next. In this context, Schrader isn't wrong that this new shift is pretty crazy, but instead of being conspiratorial why not just accept that film criticism and re-evaluation today is wildly different than. 10 years ago? That's what the poll is saying (and honestly its not that different lol). Also, information age, all these discussions are accelerating rapidly so what used to take multiple decades to change could easily occur in just one (still, a whole decade isn't insignificant).


>In this context, Schrader isn't wrong that this new shift is pretty crazy, but instead of being conspiratorial why not just accept that film criticism and re-evaluation today is wildly different than yeah this is what bothers me about how people like Schrader are reacting. they seem to fundamentally not have the ability to question whether the previous consensus picks were a byproduct of a rather narrow demographic of voters, and that expanding that pool to a more diverse crowd (as well as shifting cultural values, increasing availability of films that were previously hard to access and 100 other variables) will result in different results than what they are used to. instead of welcoming this change, or just noting it as an interesting cultural shift, they take this grandstanding cranky tone that implies the kids these days don't appreciate things the right way, as if not thinking Citizen Kane is the best film ever made is some sort of sin against the cinema gods. They shouldn't be surprised when younger folks stop taking them seriously when they behave like that and respond with things like 'ok boomer, looks like you're up past your bed time'.


> whether the previous consensus picks were a byproduct of a rather narrow demographic of voters, and that expanding that pool to a more diverse crowd (as well as shifting cultural values, increasing availability of films that were previously hard to access and 100 other variables) will result in different results than what they are used to. Jeanne Dielman is in its own right kinda narrow and academic. Ist's not like the lidt suddenly became super diverse. It didn't. It only reacted to some rather specific shifts in academia in recent years regarding identity and representation of women and Black people. There are still no Wuxia films in the top 100, more or less nonLatin American film at all (I mean is there a single one, can't really see), no cinema Novo, no Berlin School, No New French Extremity, more or less nothing from Eastern Europe baring Russia and most of the Asian films on the list are very unadventurous consensus picks. It feels more US centric in its approach than the last one in a way. Not much in the way of exploring the truly different.


I agree with you here. Expanding the pool to include more POC and women (or people being more aware of the contributions of POC and women) had a noticeable effect, but absolutely the list is lacking in many other film cultures. No Indian films except Pather Panchali despite India producing more films that anyone else. No Chinese films, no HK films aside from WKW, and very few Spanish language or South American films. TBH I think the methodology of s&s is becoming too tight. Just increase it to top 500, include critics from all over the world, and let each person pick 20-30 films. Also maybe even do away with rankings and just have it be an unranked list of great films. Does it really matter that JD is higher than Vertigo and Kane, other than as a way to inspire braindead hot takes like Schrader’s?


Yeah, the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They? lists are way more comprehensive.


I actually found the 2012 S&S combined Poll (of 806 titles) to be more interesting and diverse than the TSPDT top 1000 which usually panders more to consensus favourites, though I've also found s couple of wonderful films on TSPDT that weren't on S&S like Mes Petites Amoureuses - which is Eustache's best film but somehow on S&S they only go wild over La Maman et la putain.


I think what Schrader is reacting to is previous incarnations of the list have generally seen very small shifts in the top several films. It was considered shocking when Vertigo moved one spot up to unseat Citizen Kane. Most of the other films in the top 10 hardly changed between the decades. I think to many people like Schrader, seeing the top 10 change so dramatically is unsettling and makes them question the lists authenticity. An alternate explanation is that our culture has changed dramatically in the past decade and the people being polled has also changed. I personally wouldn’t put Jeanne Dielman in the no 1 spot, but the list is an aggregation of the current moment and that’s where it came out. It’s more interesting to me than anything, and it does seem ridiculous to get this upset about it


yeah i think that's mainly it. tbh I find it more shocking that Citizen Kane topped the list for 50 years in a row than Vertigo overtaking it. like, yeah obviously it's a great, influential film but at some point you wonder if it's a self-reinforcing thing where people keep saying it's the greatest so everyone keeps nominating it jeanne dielman was definitely a big shakeup, and i doubt it will stay at #1 for the next poll, but it is an interesting snapshot of 2022 film discourse that it shot up so high.


But culture also changed pretty radically, one could argue far more radically, between 1962 and 1972 but that didn't suddenly shake up the list like it did this year. Cultural change wasn't something that was invented between 2013 and 2022.


No young folks have heard of Jeanne Dielman. He's right about it being a great film, but it's an incredibly strange movie to very suddenly end up at number 1 of the Sight and Sound poll out of nowhere. It reminds me of that time that the New York Times did (one of the first ever) internet polls to determine the best books of all time, and like 4 L. Ron Hubbard books ended up in the top 10 because the Scientologists gamed it, lol.


> No young folks have heard of Jeanne Dielman. Twitter and letterboxd kinda indicate otherwise. I think it's more strange that Jeanne Dielman topped the list and very few other Slow Cinema films gained entry. I would argue it's an insanely influential film, especially considering how popular the likes of Tsai Ming-liang, Bela Tarr, and Lav Diaz continue to become. That particular style of filmmaking is pretty much all the rage among festival and art house kids these days. (I agree more so with Apichatpong, though. Tsai's *Goodbye, Dragon Inn* is perhaps the best film of the last 125 years.)


i am young and i love jeanne dielman. many of my peers would say the same thing.


Dielman is *the* classic cool french arthouse movie to be into right now. I think people started finding Le Samourai-fans cringy and New Wave-guys like Truffaut and Godard seem to have decreased in popularity during the last decade as well.


Progress towards making world/political/minority cinema equally mainstream to classic Hollywood is the most promising step I've seen online film discussion make in the last decade.


The nature of the difference is the problem. “It’s just different” does nothing for someone who dislikes what the difference is


He's right about them changing the way that voting takes place, though, which kind of throws it off. Sure it's a snapshot, but so was the Sight and Sound poll itself. This is no longer the Sight and Sound poll, this is something else.




Might well have been my No. 1 had I been able to vote and rank. I'm sure that's true of plenty of others.


Great perspective. Really well thought out


Well, then let's try a thought experiment. Imagine that evangelical Christians, for example, suddenly take a fervent interest in film studies (bear with me), and they enter academia in huge, unprecedented numbers and many of them go on to start careers as professional film critics. Imagine that they make no secret of their religious beliefs (even if they don't always identify them as such), and they obsessively publish articles in film journals that exclusively focus on Christian filmmakers, placing special emphasis on the religious themes and subject matter in their work. Imagine that after ten years, in the next *Sight and Sound* poll, there's a massive surge in support not only for the likes of Dreyer (who would occupy the top spot on the new list---perhaps deservedly so), Scorsese (who would occupy the number two position), Tarkovsky (who would have three films in the top ten) and Bresson (who would have five films in the top fifty), but also for other, less well-known, and *far less exceptional,* Christian filmmakers. I think loads of people who are interested in film history might raise an eyebrow. And it wouldn't be a matter of anti-Christian bigotry. Personally, I would wonder *what's going on here?* Schrader has identified a problem: there's a clear political agenda on display. I happen to believe in the importance of fairness and equality, too; but I just can't permit those shared values to blind me to what has been happening at institutions like *Sight and Sound.*


I like this example but where I take issue is calling it a *political agenda.* Maybe to some, that’s what it might look like. To me it is a changing social norm. Social norms have changed a lot since 2012. It only makes sense that a new poll would reflect that. And to respond to that example, I would do what I always do — seek out the kind of movies that fit my taste. No institution owns “the canon.” These polls are nothing more than a snapshot in time, and most likely the 2032 list will change again and reflect those cultural times.


That's exactly the point though... there already HAS BEEN a clear political agenda since the inception of cinema: No minorities, no women, no queers. That agenda is being dismantled. Some people can't handle that.


Very well said.


"suppose there's a massive surge in support..." I once tried to get a Lutheran evangelical pastor my gf knew to see Ordet. He seemed like he might have an interest. He also had an assistant pastor from Denmark, who saw in the film's rival, fervidly world-denying sect a critique of their own strain of Christianity. Thus the lead pastor never got around to seeing Ordet, though he held onto my Criterion DVD for an inexcusably long time before returning it. The same guy also had a reproduction of Andrei Rublev's well-known icon of the Trinity prominently displayed in his office. He wanted to talk to me about it. I asked him if he'd ever seen the film, and he showed he had no interest in doing that. So I wasn't interested in discussion. What I learned: evangelical Christians hate Dreyer and Tarkovsky. And for good reason. Those directors raise a lot of questions, see a lot of inexplicable relations between whatever is "holy" and our mundane lives. Where they see unfathomable and beautiful mysteries, evangelicals demand hard-and-fast answers. They can't stand not dealing all the cards and not knowing how everything plays out ahead of time.


Fascinating. The same particular group didn't seem to care for Scorsese's *Last Temptation of Christ* very much at the time, so perhaps I should have used Mormons as an example. Then again---I know absolutely nothing about Mormonism, either.


And yet, this is what Paul Schrader said in his notes which accompanied this year's ballot: "I find the decennial Sight and Sound list an invigorating critical exercise. It forces one to re-evaluate films and their personal importance... "What I enjoy most is the mutating nature of the lists. What makes way for the new films? How does one balance a film's impact on the history of cinema with its unique importance to you?" \["The Greatest Films of All Time." Sight and Sound, Winter 2022/23, p. 109.\] I guess he is only invigorated by his own critical exercise, and not that of others? His enjoyment of the mutating nature of the list is constrained by the boundaries of his own tastes? I do feel that this all shakes itself out over time. Films with that true "timeless" quality will remain, and those without it will slip.


I don’t have a problem with it being number one, it’s sudden jump to the top is what I find perplexing.


from what i understand, until like a decade ago it was actually a pretty difficult film to get a hold of unless you pirated it or lived in a city where there happened to be a screening of it. with a physical release and its availability on streaming platforms (its on hbo max and you can rent it off of amazon), its a lot easier to get a hold of.


This is why I love what orgs like criterion do (and streaming more generally, too). I remember when I was a kid and heard directors talk about this film or that film, but you could never find it at blockbuster or movie gallery; you might catch it on TV, but you had to have the time to make it happen; and so many films were just not in print.


Yes but the voters were the kind that could have access to it more than anything, hell it was 35 so they did know of it.


I'm constantly stymied by Histoire(s) du cinéma. I can't find this series anywhere but it keeps ending up on these lists.


It’s readily available on DVD in the US


It wasn't even in the director's top 100 films, and it just appeared at #4 like no one would notice. That just doesn't make sense.


Oh okay! That makes sense!


A Brighter Summers Day is in the same situation (there was no home video release before 2012) and yet that one is only at no 87. I say only because it should be in the top 20 right?


From what I understand there was a really big change in the voting body, which brought in a lot of new voices. I think it was also the highest placed movie directed by a woman in 2012, and so if more people were being deliberate in choosing a woman director it would make sense it would jump up. To be clear that deliberateness isn't bad, like if I drew up a top ten right now there probably wouldn't be any comedies and that would make me think "hold on, do I really think this is a good list of Best Movies if that entire set of films is being ignored?" Providing structure and second guessing yourself is the way to get better lists, not worse ones.


This was my thought. I really don't like the Jordan Peterson-esque, "anti-woke" tone that Schrader took here, but he is correct that it is bizarre that the movie went from not included to #1. I'm not even necessarily saying that S&S gamed the poll. But it's a bit hard to believe that 1600+ critics, most of whom were included in the last poll, suddenly changed their minds so drastically on the film without some kind of larger conversation between them. I'm imagining there was a film critic conference in a Paris a few years ago. They screened *Jeanne Dielman,* and, afterwards, a thousand people turned to each other and said, "Shit, never seen that one before!" (/s)


>But it's a bit hard to believe that 1600+ critics, most of whom were included in the last poll roughly half of them weren't included in the last poll they doubled the voters, and likely made a concious effort to diversify the pool of voters they added. changes like this aren't exactly unexpected given those conditions.


Fair! I'm not at all against it as #1 at all tbh. I've just never seen such a drastic shift on one of their polls before.


Yeah I get the initial confusion at how much it has changed, but it’s very easily explained and the idea that it’s proof of some kind of rigging is nonsense. I do think there’s probably a mindset of “well these movies get enough recognition so I should include some less celebrated ones that I think are just as good” that might have contributed to the big shake up, so some of the films that were excluded this year will probably come back next time anyway.


Jeanne Dielman was 36 on the 2012 poll, it’s long been the highest ranked film by a female director in critics polls.


>e, but He may have written one of the best films ever, but hes a typical boomer idiot about political history. Someone pointed out how canons had excluded people historically, women etc. and he said "If the canon is largely white and male then so be it" Very convenient for someone who has benefited from things as the way they are. I guess its good he can rest on the laurels of taxi driver because he hasnt done much else of note either.


I do have a problem with it being number one.


Well opinions are subjective. This is not a list of what people thought was the best but what most people think is in the top ten. If a lot of people thought it was number 10 it’s conceivable that it reaches the top without anyone claiming it’s “the best”.




When you think of the greatest films ever made, how many films do you think of before that one? I can think of a lot.


Once you get above, say, twenty five on the list, the order is pretty arbitrary. It's like trying to rank the Sistine Chapel against Notre Dame, the Great Wall of China, Starry Night, Mona Lisa, and the Grand Canyon. They're all remarkable, culturally important things and whatever order we put them in is subjective, arbitrary, and even kind of silly. EDIT: I'm going to go farther by saying that any list like this is kind of silly, but it's also fun, and ranking things is stupid.


I'm going to spend all day figuring out my rankings for those now, dammit


Your list must include: A building, a rock album, a piece of classical music, a natural landmark, a monument, a painting, a photograph, a film, and a tweet.


I would say even with a list of 100 films, the order is arbitrary. Out of every film ever made, 100 is a tiny number. Even out of all the great films ever made, 100 isn’t even scratching the surface.


Which is why the selection process for these films is an aggregate of hundreds/thousands of opinions. I personally wouldn't have any of these top ten films on my personal top ten, but that's the point of all of this.


Right? Like Singin in the Rain is nowhere near my personal top 10 or even top 20. Maybe not even top 30. But it's not about me, it's a professional group consensus.


If you didn’t read this with an angry lisp you’re not actually a cinephile.


Like Slavoj Zizek always says:




It's funny cause I'm in the r/Letterboxd sub and they're so mad at Schrader for this and I come here and everyone is like "yeah he's right" lmao


Interesting, because The Criterion Collection is an example of the kind of continuum to which Schrader refers and, in comparison, Letterboxd is an “expanded voting community.”


I know this isn't exactly what you're saying, but the Criterion Collection had very real criticisms levied against them regarding a lack of representation in filmmaker diversity in the collection, and they have addressed it comprehensively since then, and I think it's not unpopular to say that's for the better. By this logic (from Schrader, not you, OP, just to be clear), that would be a bad thing because it's all "woke" impacted by an "expanded [consumer] community". EDIT: Removed 'fully' because that's too sweeping a word in this context.


Eh, I think they have some way to go on the diversity front. I think there's still a heavy skew towards American, European and Japanese films. It has definitely improved though.


Oh, certainly, but they're an American company, it's only natural for them to have a Western-slanted release model. I was referencing more [the dearth of Black filmmakers](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/08/20/movies/criterion-collection-african-americans.html) (and specifically Black women) more than any nation/region, because they are sorely lacking in Korean films, they're working towards more from all over Africa, and more Latin American films would be nice. But since they came under fire for this they've released the Marlon Riggs and Marvin Van Pebbles sets, Pariah, Deep Cover, Love and Basketball, Once Upon a Time in Miami, Mississippi Masala, among others, and there are films like Cooley High and Hollywood Shuffle soon to come. I think there's always room for improvement, but I'm extremely impressed with how seriously they took these critiques of the diversity of their collection.


Sure. I'd agree with all that.


The difference is the Criterion sub leans older than the Letterboxd sub. Letterboxd users are much more likely to be offended by an old man with opinions. And I don't even really agree with Schrader here, but his opinion is definitely qualified.


If you complain about wokeness and political correctness your argument is immediately disqualified


In the end, I don’t care which film lands on No. 1. The fact that the list makes me and others seek out more great movies to watch — or give a second chance to one you initially dismissed — is all that matters.


I'm not a statistician, but I doubt Schrader is using good reasoning. He has a very small sample to draw from, only eight examples in this poll's history. Add to this Sight & Sound practically doubled the voter pool for this year, more-or-less deliberately seeking more diversification. I suggested on another S&S thread that, based on the 2012 poll, three films were prime candidates for making big surges, Mulholland Drive, In the Mood for Love and Jeanne Dielman. They all did and landed in the Top 10. I didn't think of this before the result, but it did make a lot of sense after the poll came in. They all reflect a contemporary zeitgeist for contemporary art films, while also holding prestige of having aged two decades or more. Schrader would need to come up with a much more in-depth argument to make a good case. Jeanne Dielman winning could be explained as a little bit of a fluke, but most importantly it won under historical conditions favorable to it. I don't see how the outcome is so odd. It's very possible that many of the new voters, aware of *why* S&S invited them, reflected on what they thought was the best film by a female director, looking at critical reputation, but also the gravitas of age. Jeanne Dielman would be a pretty logical choice. A supporting reason may have been that it's on blu-ray, and other candidates meeting similar criteria weren't.


I wouldn’t be surprised if half if not much more of the expanded total group of voters who voted JD high first saw it since the 2012 poll. I’m 50 years old and never heard of Stalker until two years ago; now it’s my favorite film. Would people freak out if they saw my favorites list from 2012 versus today? Similarly, I had no idea about JD then and it went instantly in my top ten. Schrader et al. don’t seem to be taking in account that streaming services like Criterion or HBO have made it much easier to watch these films. I see it as a democratization of critics — they’re no longer limited by hard to get physical copies or catching a film at an arthouse theater. People can actually watch all the films and not just rate on reputation. Plus with social media people are able to discuss and assess these films more easily collectively. I think people need to be more mature — sometimes people like what you don’t. If you hate JD, fine; there are plenty of films in the S&S lists that would never sniff my top 100. But it’s bullshit to assume people are rating something highly for illegitimate reasons. Edit: his comment about who counts the votes makes no sense unless he’s alleging shenanigans in the tally. I’d say this is more akin to having more candidates and more information about the candidates. Edit2: When I say rate on reputation, I’m thinking of a film like Vertigo. I didn’t get around to seeing it until this year but before I probably would have put it in a list of greatest films because hey S&S had it at #1 so it’s got to be objectively one of the greatest. I did not like it at all (and it was validating to see that a few others on this subreddit agreed for similar reasons). Are others who love it wrong? Are they in the bag for Hitchcock’s politics or woke for Jimmy Stewart? It’s silly to even ask those questions.


> shenanigans in the rally This is how I’m reading his allegations. Which…sorry, but what a pathetic reactionary take. Can Americans please stop claiming shit is rigged whenever the consensus moves differently from their own precious personal opinion? It just screams sore loser to me - and it’s not even really a competition it’s just a list lmao


This is more or less similar to my reaction when I read Schrader's little tantrum. My next thought was "hmmm...sour grapes?"


>Schrader et al. don’t seem to be taking in account that streaming services like Criterion or HBO have made it much easier to watch these films. fucking bingo in the 00s i was limited mostly to the films i could find at my local blockbuster, or i would have to pay $40+ to ship a DVD from somewhere to me. so I saw all of the 'easy' classics like Goodfellas, Seven Samurai, Citizen Kane, Taxi Driver, Nashville, etc etc. in the past decade the range of films I've watched has exploded. One weekend I marathoned a few decades of palm d'or winners on the criterion channel. Another weekend I watched Jeanne Dielman and News from Home. Another time I watched almost every one of Godard's 60s films, one per night, all on the Criterion channel. ignoring these factors, as well as the expanded pool of voters, just to make some reactionary 'things are changing and that's bad' take just feels like someone who refuses to understand the world around them.


A very well thought out and grounded reply. So many people get lost and forget what the real world looks like when they subject themselves to either end of the chronically online political scale.


As far as issues with the poll go, I think Jeanne Dielmann being number one is wayyyy down the list haha…. The glaring omission of any David Lean’s (Lawrence of Arabia is a comfy top 10 yet it’s nowhere to be seen), and Paul Thomas Anderson’s, any Krzysztof Kieslowski’s, Wild Strawberries, The Seventh Seal, Cries & Whispers, Malcolm X (this omission made all the more bizarre by Do The Right Thing’s super high placement). I’m super left wing and hate when people normally cry out about things like this, but it’s massively apparent that a huge element of the choosing criteria is to get a full scope of race, gender and sexuality as opposed to the actual quality of the movies


Kieslowski's omission doesn't surprise me. He's one of my favorite filmmakers easily, but his biggest achievements are a TV series (dekalog) and a trilogy (3 colors), which would naturally have votes split between installments.


Really a shame that *La double vie de Véronique* gets overlooked these days. It's a masterpiece.


Not sure if this is an unpopular opinion but that’s my pick for the best Kieslowski movie and trust me, I love everything else he’s done


I think Do the Right Thing is a better and more timeless film than Malcolm X, and is increasingly relevant at this exact moment due to the number of people looking at police brutality.


I’m in the same camp. I’m not going to argue with you if you think *Malcolm X* deserves a spot on the list. I’m not going to argue with you if you think *Do the Right Think* might be ranked a bit too high. But *Do the Right Thing* absolutely deserves a higher spot than *Malcolm X*.


They put Get Out over things like Tree of Life, Days of Heaven, and There Will Be Blood. It's just mindboggling. I mean I like Get Out, but hell, it isn't even his best movie.


Completely forgot to mention Malick… the two you’ve put here would be the ones for me too


Lawrence of Arabia is one of my favorite movies but that style of epic is so far out of favor right now I can't really mind it being it being out of the list. > it’s massively apparent that a huge element of the choosing criteria is to get a full scope of race, gender and sexuality as opposed to the actual quality of the movies Do you think *Kane* was the top movie for howevermany decades straight out of pure organic and spontaneous objective judgement? That the people voting for it were unaware and unaffected by the perception that it was The Best Movie of All Time? There is no such thing as the pure, dispassionate judgement of art unaffected by any external factors and criteria. The reason *Vertigo* is the movie that dethroned *Kane* was because Hitchcock is great, gotta put a Hitchcock, *Vertigo* is his most "elevated" so that's the one. Zero difference between people thinking "well my list needs a silent movie, so I'll include down *Sunrise*" and people thinking "I need a movie directed by a woman (or an arthouse movie, it's a twofer), so I'll include *Jean Dielman*". Both tendencies produce better lists that better reflect the range of cinema as an art form! Being deliberate in your choices isn't bad! Ed: I just wrote out a personal top ten list for fun and realized I had two from Michael Curtis, so I swapped out *Casablanca* for *Wild Strawberries*. Am I in thrall to the woke, politically conscious demand that Michael Curtis probably doesn't deserve two slots on the top ten?


If that style of epic is so out of favour, why are the Searchers, 2001 etc still on the list? It’s such a bizarre omission. I certainly would never use the word ‘woke.’ It’s arguably the most annoying word in the English dictionary and is just a complete buzzword for right wing people completely out of touch. All I’m saying is, there is an unfortunate fact that white, straight males, largely from the west (although Russia and the Far East (and also Ray from India) have some magnificent contenders that have to be in there, Tarkovsky and WKW being particular favourites of mine) have contributed a huge number of the greatest films ever made. Does that mean that white, straight males are definitively the best at filmmaking? No; it means that, for sadly obvious reasons, that is the group that are given a good 90% (if not more) of the opportunity to display their talents. Have we seen examples that rock the boat? Yes, but, again unfortunately, only fleetingly. Chantal Ackerman deserves great places on the list, as does Agnes Varda, as of course does Spike Lee (I actually think he should have more on the list but hey ho). I really love Claire Denis’ ‘Beau Travail’ (7 though, really?) also. I would love nothing more than to see fantastic African filmmakers, Caribbean filmmakers, Female filmmakers, LGBT filmmakers given equal opportunity to make great movies today so that a list in say, 20/30 years can stand proud in its diversity, but as we sit here today, a lot of entries are absolutely shoehorned in to this ranking to get that diversity in there. How about the film industry’s actually make proper change and get more opportunities out there? Forcing something like Moonlight in to this top 100 list is so laughable (I really like the film but please…). Perhaps they are making this change as two of the best movies to come out in the U.K. this year, including my favourite and vote for best of the year, Aftersun, were directed by women (the other being ‘Emily’) and first time women at that. This is very, very promising. To summarise, the movie industries across the world should actually work to create great movies with minorities and get more pieces of work on to list going forward where there can be no obvious arguments, instead of doing things like this list which help absolutely nobody.


Stop the steal


Fake rank!


People, including Paul Schrader, care way way way too much about rankings and what’s #1. Jfc this list is a great educational resource for people who want to know more about a diverse array of films. It doesn’t matter at all what #1 is and given the indeterminate and unpredictable nature of the balloting process (look how different everyone’s is, look at their differing philosophies about how to fill it out), there’s very little you can say about whether it was conducted in a meaningful way. Fwiw I’m just eager to see the individual ballots.


Well, Ill be checking that out, heard of the film for years but never taken the time to watch... Ill be back in a bit!


His statement about in a democracy who counts the votes matters over who gets the votes is funny when it is followed by saying the voter pool was expanded. Just like with other people who in other contexts say such things about votes not being limited to people they think it should be limited to, he somehow completely missed that the most important thing is who votes, he instead attributes the results to something nefarious (funny vote counting) rather than more people voting. The whole thing reads like: old man angry at change. The use of the word woke already tells you what cultural and political angle he's coming at this from. He does fit the mold of the segment of the American population who is perpetually aggrieved nowadays by every perceived slight. A person can be a genius in one field and completely myopic in another.


Paul Schrader says lots of things


Schrader Facebook page is the brooding afterparty of online cinema discussion


Just a reminder: this list means less than nothing. Critical consensus about a movie means fucking zilch.


Except that this list will guide discussions online and in schools for the next ten years, and Jeanne Dielman has been canonized in a way that will push it and its director to the forefront of those discussions. Neither is necessarily a bad thing.


It's real to me, dammit!


Yeah, I’m fine with critical appraisal of classic films, usually because the writer will have some sort of insight or take on the film that I find interesting, but a numbered ranking of 100 films introduces nothing useful to the discussion. That said, I love Jeanne Dielman and think it deserves to be ranked among the greatest films of all time.


Yes, it brings a lot the discussion. It is a discussion in itself actually. It shows what movies are most respected by thousands of critics and filmmakers, why do you think it’s not useful? Lists like that are great guides and recommendations. Is there one film on the list that is not worth watching? They also provide a common ground for generations of cinephiles from around the globe.


The fact that people value this list so much is funny to me. Is nobody comfortable enough on their own opinion that they can’t have their own list and see this one as a broad consensus? My favorite filmmaker is Terrence Malick, but I’m not sitting here crying about wokeness because his films aren’t on the list. I swear to god, the value of ranking films has reached new heights of ridiculous in the internet era.


I'm actually pretty surprised The Tree of Life or Days of Heaven didn't make the top 100


My understanding of why JD was ranked so high is that it was often the only film on some lists that had any kind of consensus, which goes to show that many of the new (and existing) critics and directors took the subjectivity of the poll seriously. I disagree with many of the rankings (8 ½ as low as it is….Get Out on the list), but that is what happens when many people are going to highlight films that don’t have the same critical consensus around them.






I don't understand the anger and hatred about his poll honestly. It jumped up, sure, but the poll is taken every 10 years. If it was to incrementally move up it'd take half a century. And almost every classic film that is generally considered a masterpiece is still on the list. And art is always changing and reflecting the culture. It really just feels like 'my opinion is right and people who think otherwise are wrong'. I also feel like there's recency bias that makes more modern films ineligible for being a greatest film of all time just because they're recent.


Always make sure to sprinkle in the word "woke" to gain extra points as well.


A word that seems to describe any film that is led by women or non-white actors. I saw someone say Portrait of a Lady on Fire is 'woke trash'. Because they're lesbians??


reactionaries love saying woke because they get to use it as a dog whistle for Black and queer and trans people amongst others, without being caught saying that specifically. Convenient stand in for the n word, for one. I don’t take anyone seriously who isn’t Black who says that word (and it is a Black slang to begin with!)


At this point, it's hard to take anyone seriously who uses it.


> I don’t understand the anger and hatred It’s literally the same as anything else. Some people can’t stand the fact that their opinions aren’t the end-all be-all and instead of dealing with that discomfort like adults they feel the need to throw little tantrums on the internet. It’s really exhausting the way these conservative reactionaries feel the need to politicize fucking everything.


It’s more befuddlement rather than anger.


It's befuddlement, for sure. I was speaking more generally. But also you have to be at least kinda angry to say that the poll is rigged and not credible because you don't agree with it.


Some on this sub are expressing their befuddlement and are being labeled as incel, racist, bigot, whatever buzzword is tossed around. That tends to anger those who aren’t those buzzwords and things spiral into stupid. Honestly I don’t have a problem with Paul’s statement. Sure the mentioning on “woke” is blunt and easily eye rolling but it speaks to a concern many have on allowing any ideological standard outside art to begin trumping artistic standards.


If the films he thinks are the greatest of all time are truly the greatest of all time, it wouldn't matter who was invited to submit votes because the list wouldn't change. The fact that opening up voting to a big cross-section of critics had a radical result on the list doesn't mean the new voters are wrong, it means the previous fifty years of voting was skewed by only allowing a narrow demographic swath of voters and was, wait for it... wrong.


Thank you. The old polls used to have only *70 people* voting on it. And the demographic of those voters was uh, one sided. In 2012, around 850 voted. And this year, double that voted, coming in at 1,639 voters. And people are shocked there were changes?


What about Citizen Kane or whatever do you think makes it of a higher "artistic standard" than Jeanne Dielman? Or do you think its the best just because everyone has always said it is?


Criticism isn't "anger and hatred". It is inappropriate to call it that. People are entitled to their opinions. Also: earlier polls were also held with 10 year intervals. So why didn't we see changes like this before? Schrader raises some fair questions.


The voter base was expanded significantly and now includes a more diverse bunch. It’s not hard to figure out.


It wasn't even in the director's top 100 in the previous poll, and this year it's at #4. It didn't just jump. It magically appeared.


I don't care who you are, it's disappointing and embarrassing to see grown adults cry and whine about a subjective list. The "canon" has always been changing. I don't know what overdramatic thinkpieces are supposed to accomplish.


This thread is about Schrader and JD and people still find a way to whine about Get Out.


Schrader is 1000% correct even if the way he said it is kinda dumb This poll was a severe overcorrection. You’re telling me Get Out is more worthy than every single Terrance Malick, Roman Polanski or Luis Bunuel film? Portrait of a Lady on Fire over Bicycle Thieves, Rashomon, Breathless, 8 1/2 and every single Tarkovsky film? That is absolute blasphemy. This poll emulates the modern culture where personal identity is everything. There’s nothing wrong with the four films from this decade that were added being all marginalized groups, it’s that 1 of them is absolutely not one of the top 100 films ever (Get Out) and the other 3 haven’t been around long enough for their impact to be felt. There’s nothing wrong with Portrait, Parasite or Moonlight. It’s that their quick skyrockets in this poll show how kneejerky these voters are being and calls into question credibility. To definitively say these films are better than the films that made cinema what it is raises far too many questions


> This poll emulates the modern culture where personal identity is everything People reflexively dismiss it since he said "woke" but I don't know how you deny that there's been a huge emphasis on identity in recent years. Whether that's right or wrong it's pretty clearly a real thing.


That's why I only care about the Director's List. I don't always agree with the directors, but these are people that actually make movies and have better insight and expertise than any critic or person on this subreddit. Obviously, the only opinion that truly matters is your own and you should always think for yourself and not like or dislike something just because a critic or director thinks a certain way. But, I'd rather hear what Scorsese, Tarantino or Joon-Ho think about cinema in general than some random person who's probably never been behind or in front of camera.


For what it's worth, Jeanne Dielman jumped from #116 to #4 on the director's list from 2012 to 2022, which I think indicates that critics and directors aren't too out of step in their general disposition right now.


My issue is less with Jeanne Dielman and more with films near the bottom of the top 100.


No disagreement with your comment, I love the insight of the Director's list vs. the Critic's list, I think both are intertwined and useful evaluation tools of what matters popularly vs. what is happening in the creative sphere. Wanted to give you a heads-up though that Joon-Ho is actually Bong Joon-Ho's first name and Bong is his last name. In Korean as with the rest of East Asia, people are addressed with their surname first, which has been adopted more often recently as the West becomes more culturally savvy about the East.


critics watch a lot more films than filmmakers do though, their perspective is different and closer to our own


The filmmakers list is much more aligned with my perspective than the critics list, and I watch tons of movies.


I’d be interested to know how much (if any) change there was to the director voting population vs. the critic voting population.


To be honest, I'd like to see some statistical analyses done on changes in rankings over time in movies: how quickly movies move up, how often they show up initially at different ranks, and so forth and so on. I want some numbers on how unusual this year was, because my subjective impression is that it's extremely weird. I think you can put aside discussions of whether or not it's good or bad, but when something is unusual, an outlier, it's worth having a conversation about.


Yes. Yes and yes. The fact that there was only one Ingmar movie was a jagged pill to swallow as well


Thank you Lack of Luis Bunuel is effed Critic list stinks


Eh, I try not to let polls ruin my enjoyment of movies. I think many people judge films by what's on screen and not by how it's rated, who loves it or where it ranks on some poll. I guess I could be wrong but I didn't stop loving Apocalypse Now because it made the poll. Nor did I stop loving Viridiana or Wild Strawberries when they fell off the list. Also Jeanne Dielman is one film in a list of a 100. There is no reason to think that a film that makes #1 invalidates the entire list.


"woke reappraisal" yeah sure bud


Jeanne Dielman is also tied for fourth, alongside Tokyo Story, on the Directors' list, and it wasn't even on the Top 100 for Directors in 2012, but that hasn't provoked any "thumb on the scale," or "woke" arguments that I've seen so far.


Whenever I hear someone say "woke" I can reliably disregard everything else coming from them.


I love Schrader but "woke" is really just a term people throw around when they have no real understanding of the situation


"woke" as a pejorative and "virtue signaling" are two 100% reliable indicators that the remainder of the opinion being voiced is poorly reasoned, poorly informed, and easily ignored.


Especially because publicly accusing someone of virtue signalling has become in itself virtue signalling


aka vice signalling.


Well that's some pretty lazy thinking. I mean, i'm not a fan of how the meaning of the word's been twisted, but it's not a deal breaker.


And “politically correct”. What is this, 1993?


Woke is when anyone but straight white men exist.


Wait, the winner of this thing isn’t a hetro-cis-white-male???Must be that pesky Woke movement.


I don't truly understand this criticism - it's a poll, the participants pick whatever films they want right? What ranks where is almost irrelevant because it's simply a matter of what got voted the most times. It's just a cool way to survey a sample size of critics. This is not a reflection of how the millions of people who enjoy film feel. No one can ever actually determine ONE movie to be the BEST, it's art, i thought we all knew that. He's suggesting a large portion of the 1600 or so critics deliberately chose this movie for some hidden agenda? Again I don't get it, what's the point of doing that? I thought this poll was just for fun and to celebrate excellent films. Can we not just enjoy seeing the rankings and moving on with our day loll. Why does everything have to be a conspiracy?? I think it's dope to see different movies climb up the ladder, especially seeing some modern films like *Moonlight, Parasite, Get Out* & *A Portrait of a Lady on Fire* get some love. *Jeanne Dielman* being at the top gives more people a reason to watch and enjoy the film. I think it's cool!


So one way of seeing it is just as a polling, like purely in descriptive observer terms. Another though is to take it as an indicator of what it purports to be, the best films of all time. For the sake of argument, let's say it changes drastically every 10 years, and is heavily predicted by a film being released in the last 15 years. Would you still say the list reflects "the greatest films of all time"? I'm not sure there's a correct answer to that, but I do think it raises questions about what that even means, and in the process kind of suggests maybe the question isn't valid -- which then undermines the validity of what it's trying to do. If you say "the greatest films of all time" really means "the films that people like the most at any given moment" then aren't you better off just describing it as the latter? I don't mean any of this in terms of some sacred canon that shouldn't be changed. But I do expect a greatest films of all time list to not change *too* much every 10 years. Maybe it hasn't? I guess it depends on how you interpret it.


That’s an excellent perspective, thank you for sharing. I agree the dimensions of the list depend entirely on the weight we place on that phrase - ‘greatest of all time.’ I think that’s what I like about how to list is only compiled every decade. It can sometimes be a pulse check on what our current film culture finds most important. That’s why I was really excited to see movies like ‘parasite’ being represented.


Same guy who proudly puts his own films on his S&S year end ballots.


Look if I made Mishima I'd put it on my ballot multiple times


I like how he starts by perhaps saying that the voting pool became way too large, and started to saturate opinion too much, and then loses the plot and just says it's too woke because...reasons. Okay Paul.


How many mail-in ballots?


I dunno I often hear people use the woke bias argument as code for secretly hating on anything diverse.


Its literally just vote tallying.


Paul is arguing that opening up the voting to specific interests can result in a noticeable tip on the scale. A hyperbolic example is if BFI opened the voting to Alt-Right groups and Birth of a Nation made it up on that list. That would stir conversations for sure. But yes, in the end it’s still vote tallying.


This reminds me of a film that is now Gone With the wind 🌬️ …great assessment


> Alt-right This example doesn’t quite work because he’s saying when queer/female/BIPOC people vote, they *must* have special political interests that influence their votes. Instead of them voting for what they like just like anyone else. Alt-right groups are not identities. They’re political affiliations. What’s insulting (and super duper fashy) is his presumption that anyone that’s not a straight cis white male clearly must have a nefarious agenda.


It’s just a list. Its fun to look at and talk about but in the end it doesn’t really matter. Many of my all time favorite films are nowhere to be seen on it, and that’s just fine. Edit: and since when does Schrader give a shit about what critics think?


When citizen Kane and vertigo aren’t the top 2 for the 500000th time in a row 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭


I know, now they’re only top 5. What an embarrassment. /s


Literally 2 and 3 lol


There are many ways you could describe the situation. Using woke really hurts his argument.


I feel like people are ignoring the fact that obscure films are way more accessible now. This film would have been difficult to find a decade or two ago. Considering they opened up the voting to more people than ever, the evolving tastes of viewers and modern reappraisal, and the ease of access to what used to be rare films, I don’t think big jumps are that crazy. And I don’t even like Jeanne Dielman.


I'm an old man, and I love film. I have never thought, for one second, that Citizen Kane deserves the accolades it gets. The same with 2001: A Space Odyssey. I get that my opinions are not the norm, and I accept that. But if I had been one of the voters my votes would have been very different than the historical average. Things change. People change. New generations find new things that stand out. It's the way of the world. It's not a matter of being "woke.". The assumption seems to always be that people make "woke" choices simply for the sake of being "woke." People are incapable of considering or simply refuse to consider the possibility that the person's "wokeness" is just a reflection of who they are. More willing to accept works of art from women, from people of color, from other marginalized groups. They are more willing to look outside what they have been told constitutes a great film. They have come to see that maybe film B is actually better (to them) than film A. Because it speaks to them. Because it has aesthetics that align closer to theirs. Because it deals with stories that feel more meaningful. Maybe someone watches Jeanne Dielman and comes away feeling like it touched their soul, whereas watching Citizen Kane just left them cold and bored. Plus, they essentially doubled the number of voters they had in 2012, and that was already the highest number of voters they had had. I would have been more surprised if there hadn't been upheaval.


Imagine being so uptight about a list. Feels like Paul should just go for a walk.


He would say that


Maiden-less behavior. The film community isn’t a small group of critics deciding which film is the best. The film community is a diverse group of people each with their own tastes and ideas about what a good film is. We now have a even larger poll of critics with different creeds and backgrounds, meeting a different consensus. The thing y’all are forgetting is that this is a list of films that people think are the “best.” The idea of being the “best” is intangible, and changes for each person. What if I think the best movie is “The Cat and The Hat?” Is suddenly my opinion on film not as good as others? What makes one persons idea of film more correct then someone else’s? These are all just good films, on an arbitrary list that y’all are trying to make into law. This isn’t film law, it’s a summary on what 1700 people think the best movies are. Fuckin chill out. Does it really matter that much if 1700 people decide that portrait of a lady on fire, get out, and Jeanne dielman, get to be on the list? Is it gonna change your taste in film? Is it gonna change which movies are your favorite? If it does, you have a weak opinion anyway.


The minute you add the word "woke" to it, whether you're pro or anti "woke", you gut all of your credibility. The use of that term is a glaring, flashing indicator that someone doesn't know what they're talking about. Because if you were well versed in whatever social issues you're talking about when you invoke the word "woke", you'd use the specific terminology associated with that issues. Not the word "woke"


He is right, the list seems to have changed its taste a fair bit, and the inclusion of Get Out (while keeping Godfather 2 and Touch of Evil out), Portrait as high as it is (over 8 1/2 and M), and Jeanne Dielman jumping from 35 to 1 does point to the new voters squewing differently to the older ones and tipping the scales. And yes it does hurt the credibility of the list because what happened in this edition doesn't look like a continuation of the last one, it looks like a different list. And people here may like the new one or not, but it doesn't look like an evolving canon which is the entire point.


This is bad take central here. Vertigo was not in Top 10 films in 1962, 72 or ~~82~~ and then by 2012 it was #1. Was that a woke reappraisal of or just a normal reappraisal? The list is arbitrary and is very dependent on preferences of the voters. Now lets face it everyone has their own film preferences. I personally wouldn't put 2001, Vertigo or Citizen Kane in my top 10. Its hardly an outrage worthy thing if a great film like Jeanne Dielman was named #1. I can see many people liking it more than any of the aforementioned films. Its only getting outrage because of who made the film.


Correction. Vertigo was in the top 10 by 1982, ranked 7th. It ranked even higher in 92, and by 2002, only a few votes separated it from Citizen Kane, when there were about 200 ballots. In 2012, with over 800 ballots, Vertigo cleared Kane by over 30 votes. Who knows what the margins are for this year, but the number of ballots was doubled to over 1,600. Of course we get such a seismic shift as Jeanne Dielmann leapfrogging over all the rest/


That is not a good example and also just factually wrong. Vertigo was ranked: * N/A in 1962 (this was only ~~2~~ 4 years after its release) * 12th in 1972 * 7th in 1982 * 4th in 1992 * 2nd in 2002 * 1st in 2012 It slowly crept into the top spot and is actually a perfect example of how it should be, according to Schrader. However, there are movies which make great leaps thanks to reappraisal, albeit not into the absolute top spots. For example, Man with a Movie Camera was a big surprise in 2012 and jumped from 31st to 9th out of nowhere despite being 75 years old at that time.


Love everybody upvoting that comment because it (might seem to) conform with their ideology. But surely a substantial and arguably detrimental ideological emphasis in criticism isn’t a thing. So instead of debating whether or not its valid let’s just pretend it doesn’t even exist.


By your own admission it took Vertigo 30+ years to inch up just within the Top10...


Vertigo was owned by Hitchcock himself and was kept out of distribution from 1968-1983. That and it being championed by De Palma, Scorsese, Gilliam, and Fincher makes its ascent more organic.


Also important to understand it's not really a choice of the "best movie of all time". It's more like "the most consensus-y choice to be on a list of 10 greatest movies of all time". That's a lot harder to say though.


I saw it forty years ago in colleges. Loved it.


Honestly, I think the furor is overblown, as this is merely a numbers game. So many films are made every year, and to drop from 250 to 100 in this of all decades set up a showdown that is forcing us to focus on what was left out instead of embracing a cultural shift. Filmmakers today have more access to equipment and to older films, but also to so many more influences that you're inevitably going to have less people who consider Lawrence of Arabia to be in their top ten, making it harder for what we've perceived as old classics to stay near the top of any list. Instead of condensing this list they should have expanded it--acknowledge the more diverse group of critics, audience members and films now available through a variety of services, and create a more inclusive list. Just going from 250 to 100 *guaranteed* that 150 films would be cut this year. There had to have been votes for movies on the periphery, and more than enough films to round out 250, if not 300--or 500? I'm sure people would still be bickering about the order, but our experience has broadened, so why try to artificially narrow it down?


lol at lists meaning anything


What's this post from?


I can see why vastly expanding the amount of voters suddenly for this poll can seem problematic if that happened but I feel people seem to disregard that many directors and critics change their top 10 lists each year and that they don't use ranked choice voting. it'd be interesting to see how many of the voters who had Jeanne Dielman on their list would put it at #1.


Schrader wrote this on Facebook? Okay, Boomer.


Just lost some respect for Schrader. He has no evidence, other than his feeling, that there was a thumb on the scale any more than previous polls. Historically contingent 'biases' are the nature of these polls: trends in film schools and publications, who does and does not teach or publish, who does and does not vote -- these and all sorts of things 'bias' what is and is not getting positive and negative attention. That's part of why Vertigo, Kane, and everything else lands where it does in this poll and previous ones. Schrader doesn't like the 2022 result and apparently does like the sorts of social changes the led to the result, and his response sounds like that of aggrieved white men in many contexts -- not putting into petspective the ways Vertigo, Kane, etc have benefited from such historically contingent 'biases' all along.


Oh no, after 5 decades there's a new movie on top. My fragile old white ass can't handle this change...whaaaa


I mean he’s very obviously right. There’s a very twisted logic that occurs in the minds of, let’s say, the more “worthy” types that like to see themselves as agents of change. They believe they can manipulate platforms that have existing prestige to further the causes they care about. In reality, they simply remove credibility from those platforms.


People acting like this movie, along with the inclusion of a few others, jumping up this list has nothing to do with people looking to make a political statement is hilarious. As if the voting is happening in a vacuum, separate from the world it inhabits where *everything* has become political. On both sides.


He’s clearly not right. And I hope you know that nothing you said means anything. Making up a person and then psychoanalysing them to support your claim is nonsense.


Seriously! What is going on in this thread? The idea that a certain film gained significant new appreciation in the last 10 years is so shocking to many commenters here that they resort to conspiratorial thinking.


I didn’t realize there was so many right wing weirdos in this community. Sad shit


It's so weird to me. What is watching arthouse and foreign films for if not to be exposed to new and wildly different perspectives? I didn't realize it's just to watch the same shit, but to feel smarter because its Kurosawa and Hitchcock instead of the MCU.


100% man. With all the diversity in the collection you’d think people wouldn’t be this reactionary to women getting high spots in the poll


They’re the first ones to say that “everything is too political these days” and then they’ll take a list like this and complain that it’s too “woke”. So many people here claiming that people are only voting for Jeanne Dielman to make some kind of point, and yet I haven’t heard anyone explain what that point is.


Clearly there’s a secret agenda that only conservatives are wise enough to see to get a 3 1/2 hour movie about a housewife the number one spot in a poll that 99% of the population does not know exists


I've known it for awhile. I knew it the first time I posted about and discussed Black Girl, and got users who genuinely thought the film was punching *down* at white people and victimized them. I know it everytime I'm discussing something in here and some asshole brings up my gender to insult me, even going as far as to say "women deserve to be hated" (yes, that happened in this sub.) I'm glad more people are seeing it, for awhile I felt outnumbered in that opinion


u\Cypher5-9 is on the money though. I’ve been a Sight and Sound subscribed for 10 years, and for the past 4 of those years I have been working on my PhD thesis on British film criticism and the role they play in articulating cultural and social norms - Sight and Sound features throughout - I’m looking at the stuff written about British cinema and horror films in the 1950s and 60s in particular - but there is a steady continuity on how the magazine positions itself on social and political issues. There has been since its creation really. They always tend to stress the ‘civilising’ qualities of the cinema (to paraphrase Julian Petley), and it’s use a social tool. There is nothing wrong with that - they are a publication and their views tend to reflect those of their readers. The upheaval of the list reflects this, ‘woke’ is far too reductive and a bit crude, but when films like ‘Get Out’ appear at the expense of some established classic, or ‘Beau Travail’ is suddenly leaps 70 places into the top 10, I think you can see why people are throwing it about. Again, there is nothing wrong with that. And I believe both those films belong on the list somewhere. Historically, however, the critics use their platform to espouse certain values and ideas relating to cinemas cultural, social and political importance. They were doing it in 2012, they were doing it 1992 and every other poll before. This is what makes this list so fascinating - it is such a ‘shake up’ that its prompting a lot of debate. If you’re interested in some wider reading about the critics, I would recommend Charles Barr’s seminal ‘Straw Dogs, Clockwork Orange and the Critics’, Sheldon Hall’s ‘Good of it’s Kind?’ And Melanie Selfe’s article on the ‘Quality Film Debate of the 1940s’. All fascinating reads!


I appreciate you being far more articulate about your point rather than using the same reductive language a lot of posters are about this. I still think it’s a silly thing to be upset about, film consumption and film criticism will always be biased and any such lists will always reflect the current mentality of the population voting on it. These lists act as much as a historical document of the world at the time of publishing as they do an actual film canon.


Yes exactly! They are a really useful window into how prevailing social norms are articulated through film criticism and culture. Obviously it’s very silly to anyone who is not interested in film culture or history - but the discussions its igniting within those spaces are fascinating. Frankly, I don’t think ‘the canon’ has been changed up, so much as the names have. It’s still heavily weighted toward auteur driven, art house films, with genre and popular cinema being under represented. I reckon that will change in the next poll when the video essay generation gets to vote.


But if THE CARD COUNTER had jumped to number one on the other hand…


He'd probably say 'Wtf it's not even my best movie'


That doesn’t make any sense


​ >Ackerman's film is a favorite of mine, a great film, a landmark film but it's unexpected number one rating does it no favors. Schrader is fucking right on the money here. I'm Indian and I feel like in the last ten years, most cultural institutions are influenced more by the politics of the time(I don't mean political parties) than the actual merit of the film.


Cultural institutions and their influence is Politics by definition. There is no objective merit in rating one movie over the other at all. All voting lists are just politics in action. Saying something is the best movie or not will be decided by random voters in the context for their times. This is not an exception, this is exactly how it is.


>I feel like in the last ten years, most cultural institutions are influenced more by the politics of the time(I don't mean political parties) than the actual merit of the film. Always have been 🌎🧑‍🚀🔫👨‍🚀