|
Click Here to Login |
Register | Premium Upgrade | Blogs | Gallery | Arcade | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Log in |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
![]() |
#1 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,601
Local Time: 03:32 PM
|
Roger Ebert's S & S list...which would you choose?
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012..._all_time.html
__________________Aguirre, Wrath of God (Herzog) Apocalypse Now (Coppola) Citizen Kane (Welles) La Dolce Vita (Fellini) The General (Keaton) Raging Bull (Scorsese) 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick) Tokyo Story (Ozu) The Tree of Life (Malick) Vertigo (Hitchcock) Now if you could narrow down the ten most transformative movie experiences you've had what would they be?
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 38,328
Local Time: 02:32 PM
|
I've said this elsewhere, but as someone who's been a devoted Ebert reader for over 25 years, I think his inclusion of Tree of Life is absolutely boneheaded.
__________________People are free to submit what they want, but including such a new film less than a year after its release is beyond jumping the gun. And I consider it a masterwork. But until one has the perspective that time provides, putting it up among the greatest films ever committed to celluloid is an insult to all of those masters. And Purpleoscar, I'm not sure I'm onboard with the way you've phrased that question, if your intent was to pose the same question Sight & Sound is asking its panel. "Transformative" does not necessarily equal "greatest". The poll is for the Greatest Films Of All Time. Not favorite, not most moving, personal, transformative, etc. It's meant to request an objective survey as possible. From Ebert's list, I believe that Kane and Vertigo are no-brainers. 2001 isn't something I have a problem with being on their either. I haven't totally warmed to Tokyo Story yet after one viewing, for some reason preferring some of the ones in my Late Ozu set (though I thought they were all great in one way or another). The General is certainly important and influential, but there's no way I'd put Keaton on the list ahead of Chaplin, who was a superior filmmaker. Apocalypse Now is likely a divisive choice, but I do agree with Ebert's reasoning why he chose that over either Godfather film, and as it's my #1 of all time it would certainly be on my ballot, perhaps just behind Kane. I'm not sure if La Dolce Vita is Fellini's best, or if I'd put any of his work on the ballot. Tough call. And I love the Herzog, but Ebert is one of his fanboys and is a little biased here. Plus, I think Fitzcarraldo is better anyway.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,675
Local Time: 04:32 PM
|
Lessons of Darkness all the way, baby.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,601
Local Time: 03:32 PM
|
Quote:
I definitely would like to know WHY people choose these films. It doesn't have to be a long write up but I'm sure everyone will benefit if they've seen a movie before and can view another person's angle or just confirm why they don't like the film. If titles appear that people haven't seen it will spike curiosity on a title. I'll use spoilers for my descriptions if people just want to see a list. I do agree that it is probably premature to include Tree of life but with sites like this I can see why some are tempted: http://reviewingtreeoflife.blogspot....max-results=10 I probably will avoid putting it in because 10 slots will have HUGE competition.
__________________
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,675
Local Time: 04:32 PM
|
I think the boneheaded thing about these lists and discussions is the pretense of objectivity in ranking or prioritizing art. There is none, or at least one has to lay out a pretty clear criteria with which the individual making such a list is using to place any given film above another... which still isn't objective, but it helps narrow the infinite possible qualities with which any given person could define something as the "best" or "better" than others, as those words mean literally nothing in this realm of conversation. Ebert's journal entry is interesting at least because he explains his thought process and it's not merely "Here are the ten greatest films of all time" because that would be asinine, as would suggesting a film from last year shouldn't count because it hadn't stood the test of time. Because that shouldn't necessarily be a criterion of "greatness." Though it could be important for a list like this, or not. I'm rambling a little, but this has always been an issue that's bugged me. I'm not saying anything like this is necessarily a list of someone's personal favorites or should be, but lets not be deluded enough to believe an arbitrary criteria for a film being "best" is anything close to objective. Really I think it's just poor semantics anyway, so I should shut up.
Mainly I'd like to see what anyone contributing to this tread would believe makes a film worthy of such a discussion (another personal judgement) then maybe see reasoning for each pick.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,601
Local Time: 03:32 PM
|
I'm not making this thread too serious. I don't believe we have to convince others that our lists are scientific. I agree with Ebert that it's propaganda in that you would pick 10 movies you think are the best and the fun in it is seeing how people are affected by these choices. It's nice to know that La Dolce Vita has such an affect on Ebert and reading that review in 2002 helped me enjoy the movie when I first watched it.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 38,328
Local Time: 02:32 PM
|
Quote:
Well, one can "respect" a film more than one likes it, no? There's no pure objectivity but there is the potential for recognition of ones own tastes and biases. Over half the films in my personal Top 10 aren't ones that I feel are the best examples of cinematic art that deserve placement in some kind of pantheon. And Citizen Kane, which I do feel is the best film ever made, is nowhere near that list. And I'm not backing down on the time thing. There's no fair way to judge something that one's only been familiar with for such a short period. So many things can play into how we experience something at a certain point in our lives. To suddenly proclaim a film one of your favorites is one thing, but the supposed "best" films are the ones that continue to display their merits with such intensity for years and years afterwards.
__________________
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,675
Local Time: 04:32 PM
|
Well of course one can "respect" a film more in such a way. But then we have to ask ourselves questions like, why exactly do we respect this film, and why does that answer qualify it for this abstract notion of "greatness?" Also worth asking if that itself is more important, or at least relevant, than ones own personal taste.
I just think there's such a degree of subjectivity in any of this, not only in suggesting that a film's "greatness" should in part be defined by its historic influence, complexity of themes, technical ambition or aptitude, etc, but also what marks significance in any of those individual traits, as every single person is going to have something slightly different they value in what marks historic influence or formal accomplishment, and so on. Anyway, it's good you're so adamant about the time thing, as that's a good clear barometer for feting these sorts of things. Then again it's not something I find terribly important so it makes for a good discussion. Of course I place almost complete importance on personal taste and subjective analysis. I think if I were to make a top 10 list based completely on my own feelings it would consist almost entirely of films from the past 20 years, maybe with one of two exceptions, and that's if I'm limiting myself to one per artist. I'd like to try and make one along the lines of Ebert's here though, taking similar things into consideration, though I'm not sure I'd ever land on something I'm completely happy with.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,305
Local Time: 04:32 PM
|
I think Aguirre is Herzog's best film. And I've seen all but three of them (seen all of the other docs, short films, etc.), so it's not a ridiculous choice from his oeuvre. And on an objective level, hardly a "fanboy" thing to have it in a Top Ten. Frankly, his list isn't all that suprising.
As for 'Tree of Life', my girlfriend and I both agreed that it wasn't the best film of 2011 for either of us, but it's certainly the one that film scholars will look back at the most from that year. Just for completing a production that takes on so much and achieves mostly incredible results should have earned that team the Best Picture Oscar last year...and Mallick not winning for Best Director was criminal. Hell, I'd even argue that it has Brad Pitt's finest performance. That film will carve a deep place in cinematic history. Trust me.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,601
Local Time: 03:32 PM
|
This list may not vary from too many other lists but it's hard to replace these titles with others at the moment. 1. Citizen Kane 2. Casablanca 3. Vertigo 4. Sunrise 5. Lawrence of Arabia 6. The Godfather part II 7. 2001: A space odyssey 8. Star Wars 9. Singin’ in the rain 10. The good, the bad, and the ugly
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 38,328
Local Time: 02:32 PM
|
Casablanca is a crowd-pleaser. It's not great art.
Curtiz is a hack and nothing by him should be in the running among films from the true masters. And you know, it's telling that in your little capsule you say nothing about the direction, or mention his name.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 38,328
Local Time: 02:32 PM
|
Quote:
I don't disagree with any of this. But it's still too soon.
__________________
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 38,328
Local Time: 02:32 PM
|
Also, Purpleoscar, good to know that all 10 of your picks are either Hollywood films or at least in the English language.
![]()
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Blue Crack Distributor
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,236
Local Time: 02:32 PM
|
I'm pretty sure all of mine would be
![]() Though I think that if I were to pick Greatest movies instead of Favorite, my list would be a lot different than normal, and then, perhaps I would have some different inclusions. Probably Rashomon, The Seventh Seal and possibly Spirited Away would be there. I might even end up having Blade Runner on a list of "Greatest", though I think my opinion of that film is pretty well known.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,601
Local Time: 03:32 PM
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|