Master Index of Archived Threads


Times of London Top 100 Films Ever.

metirish May 29 2008 01:56 PM

Yeah another list , but I bet this one will surprise you and perhaps have you shaking your head. No Citizen Cane Times article. Take your seats for the top 100 films Another film list? The same old Citizen Kane? No — this one’s different, says The Times’s chief film critic James Christopher You may be suffering from list exhaustion. There are so many about, and especially on film. But this one is different. Yes, of course we’d say that. But having read endless Top 100 film lists, we felt short-changed. Sure, they’re definitive in their way, but they don’t have many surprises. This one aims to be all-encompassing, certainly, and authoritative. But it is also intended to cause debate and maybe consternation. None of us — myself, my fellow critics at The Times and my editor Tim Teeman — realised how contentious this list would be to compile. We didn’t want simply to rearrange the furniture as other lists do. Nor to kow-tow to monolithic critical masterpieces routinely crowned year on year. There are some spectacular casualties. Citizen Kane (1941) failed to cut the mustard. The genius of Orson Welles was not to be denied. But it was felt that his sour and seedy thriller Touch of Evil (1958) was not only equally audacious in terms of pure film-making, but also had greater resonance than Kane. Some omissions are too painful to talk about: Groundhog Day, The Servant, The Lives of Others, Psycho, The English Patient. (All my choices naturally.) Tastes vary dramatically, and you would be amazed how few critics will fall on their swords when it comes to such a fraught subject. That said, the list looks far fresher and younger than any of us dared hope. The number of recent releases vying for places near the summit is a surprise. I shall be horrified if anyone agrees with every one of our choices. The point of The Times Top 100 Films of All Time is to stimulate argument, and sharpen your own thoughts about the ingredients that make great movies. Now, if you’d like to take your seats for the main presentation . . .

AG/DC May 29 2008 02:05 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 29 2008 02:35 PM

I just clicked on 10-4. They like thier movies to be character studies of creepy men.

Vic Sage May 29 2008 02:28 PM

yet more proof that "best ever" lists should not include films from the last 10-15 years; otherwise, the fallacy of the new rears its ugly head and pics like CITIZEN KANE get knocked off their perch by THERE WILL BE BLOOD, or some other flavor of the month.

Nymr83 May 29 2008 02:48 PM

Some omissions are too painful to talk about: Groundhog Day, The Servant, The Lives of Others, Psycho, The English Patient. Groundhog Day is great, Psycho was an average film at best, and keeping the English Patient off your list gives you instant credibility in my mind. Still, the exclusion of Citizen Kane from a top 100 is inexcusable. I agree with vic that a waiting period to put the film in proper perspective is generally a good idea. there have been "best picture" winners that i dont think belong anywhere near the list (i'm looking at you forrest gump) while not one but two of the movies they "beat" for the award are generally considered list worthy by any sane person (shawshank redemption and pulp fiction)

AG/DC May 29 2008 03:03 PM

Point Break.

Willets Point May 29 2008 06:13 PM

Vic Sage wrote: yet more proof that "best ever" lists should not include films from the last 10-15 years; As always I disagree with this as the lists are the "best ever" at the time the list is composed and are primarily for discussion anyhow.

Vic Sage May 30 2008 09:09 AM

how about the best movies on a friday afternoon, at 3pm? and the purposes of the "discussion" are obscured if you're asked to debate the worthiness of films released yesterday as compared to ones that have survived as cultural touchstones for 65 years. a "cooling off period" is necessary to let the temporal distortion fade, so the films can be assessed and discussed more rationally. And anybody that puts "point break" on its top 100 list isn't interested in discussion. They're just being purposefully contradictory. It's like the Monty Python sketch: "I came here for an argument" "no you didn't..."

Willets Point May 30 2008 11:58 AM

Vic Sage wrote: a "cooling off period" is necessary to let the temporal distortion fade, so the films can be assessed and discussed more rationally. No it isn't. A list is an artifact of the time it is made. Compare a list from today to one from 20 years ago and you can see which films were overvalued and undervalued at that time. Not to mention that a list is just one person - or at best a small group of editors - idea of the "best of all time." A movie is good or isn't, a person likes it or doesn't. Setting arbitrarily time limits just stifles intellectualism and discussion. To sum up, you're wrong.

Vic Sage Jun 02 2008 11:03 AM

A list is an artifact of the time it is made. Compare a list from today to one from 20 years ago and you can see which films were overvalued and undervalued at that time. that's one of the things a list is. Another thing it is, or could be, is a rigorous and scholarly attempt to put things in a historical and/or aesthetic context, using a methodology that minimizes "noise" so as to arrive at conclusions that are as objecively determined as possible, given that the subject is art. So some lists are better this than others. Not to mention that a list is just one person - or at best a small group of editors - idea of the "best of all time." Or its the consequence of serious-minded people really trying to do some critically valuable work. Clearly, THIS list is not THAT. A movie is good or isn't, a person likes it or doesn't. Setting arbitrarily time limits just stifles intellectualism and discussion. To sum up, you're wrong. LIKING or NOT LIKING is an entirely different matter than GOOD or NOT GOOD. If you're going to make a list of 100 of your favorite movies, everybody's list is as useful (or useless) as anybody else's list. I don't care about such lists, unless the opinions are expressed by people with a track record of critical analysis that i find interesting. But if your making a "top 100 of all time", that's an attempt to create not just a subjective list of favorites but an objective list of "best", and such an effort should be suject to scrutiny, especially in terms of the methodology. I proposed a methodology (time limits, for one) in an attempt to reduce the amount of "noise" created by the logical phenonomenon known as the "fallacy of the new", wherein more recent events take on larger significance than older events. Certainly you could consider that there is also "noise" when considering older works that have entered the cultural canon as "classics", and knocking CITIZEN KANE off its perch may have its merits. Of course, the burden of proof is on you when you do that, but I'd be delighted to read or discuss a methodology for reconsidering the classics, too. So, rather than "stifling intellectualism and discussion", discussions of methodologies (as they do in scientific inquiry) actually expand the discussion. But NOTHING stifles discussion like a statement such as: To sum up, you're wrong

Willets Point Jun 02 2008 01:14 PM

Vic Sage wrote: But NOTHING stifles discussion like a statement such as: To sum up, you're wrong That was a joke. If I have tag everything with SC it won't be worth it. I still think 10-15 years is arbitrary. Weigh a film on its merits as a film not on when it was made. Take for example the movies from your list in this thread. If you made a list of the best movies in say 1976 would The Producers be unworthy of inclusion but in say 1981 it's magically acrued greatness? I think there are more intelligent ways to determine a film's value than that.

AG/DC Jun 02 2008 02:00 PM

You know, if time suggests you over-rate a current movie, or under-rate one, so what? You're wrong. You'll be wrong about plenty anyhow. Betting on a new stock is a high-risk, high-reward venture. What real meaningful authority do these lists have, anyway? They're just recommendations of what you should see. These folks think you should see There Will Be Blood. Maybe I should, but, based on the other films they frontload the list with, I'm leery.

Vic Sage Jun 02 2008 02:29 PM

I still think 10-15 years is arbitrary. Weigh a film on its merits as a film not on when it was made. the number of years is arbitrary, but not the concept that the passage of time factors into the analysis. A "cooling off" period allows an assessment independent of media saturation, hype and emotional responses that have more to do with cultural phenomena than they do with the movie istelf. That's why, to more accurately a assess or "weigh a film on its merits as a film" (as opposed to a cultural event) takes some time and distance. Take for example the movies from your list in this thread. If you made a list of the best movies in say 1976 would The Producers be unworthy of inclusion but in say 1981 it's magically acrued greatness? first of all, those are lists of "favorites", not an attempt at a "best of". As i said before, those are 2 entirely different exercises. And the fact is that movies do accrue "greatness" over time, or at least there greatness becomes less or more apparent over time. Of course, if trying to assess "greatness" is not the point, go ahead and list movies from yesterday, if you liked them. But if you're trying to create a tool to evaluate the history of an artform with an eye toward greater, not lesser, objectivity, than standards and methodologies are important to consider. I think there are more intelligent ways to determine a film's value than that. there are lots of ways... but surely its best to consider such determining factors, than to simply say "whatever you liked best today is good enough for the ages". Why is that a MORE intelligent way to determine value? Why is having no objective standards or criteria more intelligent?

Vic Sage Jun 02 2008 02:35 PM

AG/DC wrote: You know, if time suggests you over-rate a current movie, or under-rate one, so what? You're wrong. You'll be wrong about plenty anyhow. Betting on a new stock is a high-risk, high-reward venture. What real meaningful authority do these lists have, anyway? They're just recommendations of what you should see. These folks think you should see There Will Be Blood. Maybe I should, but, based on the other films they frontload the list with, I'm leery. lists can have little value, or more value, depending on the criteria and methodologies used to create them. If you're collecting data for a scientific study, its all about methodology, in terms of assessing the validity of a study. So, too, with "lists" or any other attempts at scholarship in a field of study. the issue here, i think, is that since its just movies, and everybody is an expert, and everybody's opinion is of equal value, then therefore scholarship is meaningless. But i don't think it is meaningless. I just think that, like with any field of study, there is good scholarship and bad scholarship. Now, i don't think a bunch of newspaper guys were trying to create scholarship, but there list becomes data in the field for further scholarship on the history and aesthetics of cinema, and as such has greater impact (for good or ill) than a list of movies you might want to give a try (or ignore entirely).

metirish Jun 02 2008 02:38 PM

I liked "There Will Be Blood" a whole lot but it arguably wasn't even the best movie of 07 , I enjoyed " Michael Clayton " just as much. The performance of DDL would probably edge "There Will Be Blood" for me but " Michael Clayton" had excellent acting as well.

AG/DC Jun 02 2008 04:42 PM

Vic Sage wrote: the issue here, i think, is that since its just movies, and everybody is an expert, and everybody's opinion is of equal value, then therefore scholarship is meaningless. But i don't think it is meaningless. Who says it's meaningless?

Willets Point Jun 02 2008 07:23 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jun 03 2008 09:29 AM

Two things I believe I've already said in this thread but I'll reiterate for clarity: 1. As Edgy pointed out, lists are mostly for fun and a way to recommend films and/or begin discussion of their merits. 2. There are many ways to determine value of a film, but arbitrary time limits are not valuable in my studied opinion. Vic Sage wrote: there are lots of ways... but surely its best to consider such determining factors, than to simply say "whatever you liked best today is good enough for the ages". Why is that a MORE intelligent way to determine value? Why is having no objective standards or criteria more intelligent? It's a great leap to say "arbitrary standards are not helpful" and have you have me say "there should be no standards at all." In fact I think you know that I didn't say that, and just said I did because you like to push buttons.

AG/DC Jun 02 2008 07:30 PM

I'd appreciate if we can keep namecalling in the Red Light.

Willets Point Jun 02 2008 07:46 PM

I bleeped out the names. I would appreciate it if Vic would admit what he did was wrong and deliberately provocative and not merely a "disagreement."

Vic Sage Jun 03 2008 09:38 AM

It was neither wrong nor "deliberately provocative". I interpreted your public statements. You don't like or agree with my interpretation? Tough.

Willets Point Jun 03 2008 09:46 AM

Vic Sage wrote: It was neither wrong nor "deliberately provocative". I interpreted your public statements. You don't like or agree with my interpretation? Tough. Wow, do you work Fox News? Your basically said that I said something that I didn't say in order to discredit me and if I find that a problem it's my own fault? I'm not letting up on you until you respond to what I actually wrote and retract your effort to twist my words around. An apology would be nice too but not expected.

Vic Sage Jun 04 2008 09:19 AM

your statements are here and my statements are here. Others can assess them however they want. But my points were about the topic under discussion, for which i tried to provide rationales. Yours were primarily dismissive blanket statements without support, and then degenerated into direct attacks against me personally (until they were moved to the red light forum). And i owe YOU an apology? wow. Everybody is a hero in their own story, i guess.

Willets Point Jun 04 2008 09:45 AM

Okay, since you continue to be insentient of what you did to offend me, lets do a little role playing where I'll do to you what you did to me. Lets start with something you actually said: "I proposed a methodology (time limits, for one) in an attempt to reduce the amount of "noise" created by the logical phenomenon known as the "fallacy of the new", wherein more recent events take on larger significance than older events. Certainly you could consider that there is also "noise" when considering older works that have entered the cultural canon as "classics", and knocking CITIZEN KANE off its perch may have its merits. Of course, the burden of proof is on you when you do that, but I'd be delighted to read or discuss a methodology for reconsidering the classics, too." Now I'll reply in the manner you replied to me by making up something you never said: "I really don't see how you can build a methodology of evaluating movies on little blue fairies whispering to you the best movies of all time. Can you construct something scholarly on the advice of little blue fairies? Do little blue fairies even exist?" To which you may be understandably miffed and say something like: "What the fuck? I never mentioned anything about little blue fairies. You made that up just to mock me." And if I replied to you in the way you replied to me I would say: "I interpreted your public statements and I interpret what you say as "little blue fairies." You don't like or agree with my interpretation? Tough!" Do you get it now? Do you see how making up things I say and responding to the made up commentary is disparaging, insulting even, and not a fair way to argue?