Saw it for probably the 5th time in January 2018—6th time in January 2020
It’s a film I’m going to try to get to every year or so. It’s formally flawless and stylistically audacious at the same time. It’s one of the 15-20 films I think you could legitimately call the greatest film of all-time at this point.
Shockingly enough (he’s known for taking a lot of time between his work)- this was Dreyer’s 9th film—he has 9 from 1919 to 1928—he’d slow down considerably after this and would only have 4 more over the rest of his life (36 years)
I’m not 100% sure it isn’t the greatest film of all-time and I only feel that way about 4-5 films right now
The only of those 8 films from Dreyer made prior to this that I’ve seen is Master of the House (1925). It is not good. Preachy and offers almost nothing stylistically- so this is really, as far as I know, his birth as an artist (I think the rest of his films prior to Passion of Joan of Arc aside from Master of the House were lost)
He was big on non-professional actors and stripping away all overacting and emotion—clearly he’s a massive influence on Bresson (The Trial of Joan of Arc Bresson made in 1962- not nearly as good) who did the same thing and also had films on similar subject matter and theme
No makeup uses- unheard of in 1928
Maria Falconetti’s second performance- her last performance
Dreyer and Falconetti didn’t invent the close-up (Griffith and Gish really did that) from an artistic standpoint but this is damn close. It’s searing imagery and one of the greatest performances of all-time without a doubt
It’s searing imagery in the close-ups of Falconetti– each image a picture– and her work is one of the greatest performances of all-time without a doubt
Ethereal suffering
Ebert references Bordwell’s book on the film—apparently there’s a study on the disorienting cuts and he does a breakdown (I can only imagine- how awesome)—there’s true theme and variation in the choices by Dreyer- many don’t carry directly over- either way it’s a masterpiece built, amongst other things, in the editing room
It’s also a masterpiece in front of the camera (performances, mise-en-scene) and with the camera- there are many rolling tracking shots. Formal brilliance.
are there 10 better single images in cinema imagery? Dreyer’s control and overwhelming beauty of mise-en-scene on display here
There are really no establishing shots- at least in the court room or the prison (there are a few I guess in the gorgeous exterior work in the second half of the film on the way to the execution)
look at the shapes and use of architecture here- this could be from Wiene’s The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari – expressionism and mise-en-scene at it’s finest
Film was lost until 1978
Apparently Dreyer editing the film from current footage in post when he had some issues with money—it took him a year and a half to complete in the 1920’s and very few artists (Griffith, von Stroheim) took that long
the mise-en-scene is masterful. The concave shapes, the crosses, and in a few scenes- gorgeous displays of blocking and framing
the mise-en-scene is masterful. The concave shapes, the crosses, and in a few scenes- gorgeous displays of blocking and framing
I look forward to continuing my Dreyer study but I don’t remember it to be that closely connected stylistically with his other work. There are hints of it in Vampyr but this is closer to Eisenstein (I mean the battle sequence in the last 10 minutes of Passion of Joan of Arc has to make you think of Potemkin and the art of editing) in most ways than Murnau (which Dreyer’s Vampyr feels more akin to)
Authenticity in the text is a goal here- we have the script taken from actual text from the trial
The opening track is a stunner of a shot (one that would be repeated regularly) through the crowd at the trial
It could just be me but Falconetti looks a little like the profit kid (Jeremy Blackman) from Magnolia. Normally I wouldn’t think anything of it but knowing Magnolia and PT Anderson I wouldn’t put it past him
Characterizations enhanced with grotesque faces, fat, warts, moles, hair in nose, padded fat suits on the judges-
Characterizations enhanced with grotesque faces, fat, warts, moles, hair in nose, padded fat suits on the judges-
Dollies in and out quickly on the guards to show emotion and hostility
Falconetti is unreal with those unblinking eyes
Reoccurring tracking shots of judges
It’s a top 5 edited film of all-time
The head judge’s performance is underrated- never heard him motioned
The head judge’s performance is underrated- never heard him motioned
Stark white walls with detailed mise-en-scene (crosses mainly) placed sparingly and strategically throughout—the walls also draw you to the performance
Dreyer uses the walls a canvas— shapes, faces, distances– there is white and grey because of the architecture here
Simple but formally perfect
Variation on the angles—profile, from underneath—the low angle-work with the camera predates Welles—this is a major breakthrough for me on this film (after 5 viewings here)
Variation on the angles—profile, from underneath—the low angle-work with the camera predates Welles—this is a major breakthrough for me on this film (after 5 viewings here)
It’s a symphonic repetition in the editing
There are countless inventive shots- images that belong on a wall in a museum too many to mention- over 100 in an 80 minute film
There are countless inventive shots- images that belong on a wall in a museum too many to mention- over 100 in an 80 minute film
Disorienting breaking of the rules of eyelines—gives to her mythic quality and state of mind
Both stark (objects in the frame in front of blank slate) and expressionistic (creative angles, eyelines, ordering and sequencing of the images)
Worms in skull
Hill with a cross
The entire film is form and aesthetic choices—it’s worth noting that the first 15-20 minutes are essentially a court-room scene with questions and dialogue back and forth. This type of scene, going into the 21st century 100 years later, is almost always done in such an uncinematic way— Dreyer makes a masterpiece of back and forth dialogue.
Painful to watch hair cut scene
Another stunner shot is the overhead upside down shot of soldiers marching towards the end
Another stunner shot is the overhead upside down shot of soldiers marching towards the end
The rolling tracking shots of the sad crowd at her death perfectly mirrors the opening of the judges shouting at her
A Massive Masterpiece—I’m not 100% sure it isn’t the greatest film of all-time and I only feel that way about 4-5 films right now
Our favorite silent and 20s film – Joan (phenomenal film. I agree with you. This may be the greatest movie of all time.)
Our favorite (mostly) B and W film and of the 80s – Raging Bull
Our favorite 1960s film- 2001
It will only be a matter of time before 2001 becomes your favorite color film and your favourite movie of all time. Haha.
I’m not 100% sure it isn’t the greatest film of all-time and I only feel that way about 4-5 films right now.
So when you update your rankings, will joan be a top 5 film of all time?
What are the other 5 movies you feel could be considered the Greatest of all time?
@Azman– yeah so we agree on the best film of the 1920’s, best film of the 1960’s, and the best film of the 2010’s I think– that’s remarkable. We should keep this in mind the next time we disagree on a film or director. haha.
Yes- Joan will be in my top 5 the next time I update it. Right now the 4 films I think have the most legitimate claim to the best of all-time is this, 2001, Apocalypse Now and The Searchers
I think raging bull can legitimately play claim to being the GOAT movie also. You said 2001 , searchers, apocalypse and joan will be in your top 5. Does this mean Raging Bull has slipped out of your top 5? You also didnt mention we have the same 80s favorite movie. Does this mean Raging Bull has seriously dropped down in your rankings? That seriously baffles me. I love that movie.
I’m sorry for my grammar and spelling ?. I usually write these comments in a hurry and when I read them over I cringe a bit because they don’t make sense and they are so poorly written. Haha.
Drake
March 11, 2020 at 1:41 pm
@Azman – no worries– If you haven’t noticed my grammar and spelling could be better… I’m going to buy a software to help but in the interim I’m usually in a hurry as well.
Raging Bull hasn’t fallen for me– watched it again in 2019– I’m just ready to put Joan of Arc ahead of it. I didn’t realize it was your #1 of the 1980’s — we share that, too.
So what would your top 5 is passion, apocalypse, 2001, the searchers, does this mean citizen kane is no longer a top 5 film for you? Or did Raging bull drop out of the top 5? Or is a completely new film you are going to include in your top 5?
@ Azman– haven’t given it much thought and probably won’t again for awhile– another year or two— but I didn’t see any reason to move Raging Bull down when I revisited it just last year .It is a brilliant piece of work. The move up for Dreyer’s Joan of Arc is more about how good that film is– not about anything wrong with Raging Bull.
I’m sorry to bother you again, i never realized there were multiple versions, i was trying to see it, but I couldn’t figure out which one is correct.
Which one should I see?
01h 36min or 1h 21min?, I even found versions of 1h 22min 19s and 1 h 50 min
@Aldo, there are different soundtrack versions too. There is a version on vimeo with a great soundtrack and it is 1 hr 30 minutes long. I’ve seen that and it is what I consider one of the greatest movies of all time.
There is also an opera soundtrack and no soundtrack at all.
@Drake, what soundtrack do you watch the movie with?(since Dreyer never actually decided on a soundtrack)
This film is unreal. I honestly don’t even know where to begin. The very first thing I’ve noticed is the way that it is filmed. The close-ups that as you’ve articulated perfectly above greatly enhance the characterisations, all the different angles from which Dreyer films the faces, all the frames, and of course the mise-en-scene. It is all unreal. This movie is truly a piece of art and one of the very best. And to think it all happened more than 90 years ago. It must have been groundbreaking, I don’t believe anyone had ever seen anything like this. It is probably one of the most important pieces of cinema, not only artistically but historically as well.
I also wanted to point out a couple of more technical observations as well. I don’t know what was the stance toward nudity in film back in the 20’s, but I imagine things were very strict and puristic to a great extent. So, I noticed there is a shot of a woman breastfeeding, I think, so I guess you could say it was also a very provocative piece of work back then. Also, I think you are right that the film was lost for a long time, but if up until 1978, then how was it possible for Goddard to use parts of it in Vivre Sa Vie?
@Georg- thanks for sharing. So happy to hear we’re on the same page. I think “lost” is a bit misleading on my part– sorry. It wasn’t completely lost- there were versions of it available– but not the preferred version by Dreyer.
@Drake- haha, no worries. Thank you actually for clearing that up because to be honest, I am a little lost with all the versions and the history behind the movie and how it reached us today.
I always think of Falconetti in a weird way. This woman came in, gave us one of the top 5 female acting performances of all time (if not the best), and just disappeared. She left all the way to South America, and spent the rest of her years there, in anonymity, battling mental illness. It is rather tragic should you think of it. But I guess it somehow adds to the legend of the film and her work in it.
Wow just watched it for the second time today. Let me confess I liked it a lot when I forst saw it or I respected it is better. I watched it on my computer about a year back with no subtitles or music. That was no way to watch it. I watched it on my flat screen today with the opera blaring. I was also unable to appreciate falconetti because I was tricked by the myth that acting must be ‘naturalistic’ like Casey Affleck or someone, not thought provoking or interesting. I have definitely come around. This is a humanist masterpiece. The acting is near perfect not just her but the 0riests as well especially the one that looks like the old man from twelve angry men, who tells her to trust him on order of the king. And the kid who looks unmistakably like buster Keaton. The edits, blown away. Where the guy throws down the mace. This film could have been super theatrical but Dreyer directs Masterup camera movement and the close ups are the best I’ve ever seen. I still think Intolerance is a better silent film, but this is a complete masterpiece. My only problem is I am a believer in Christ but reject catholic theology. The way I read it Joan was deceived and a heretic but she was clueless of it and just wanted to do what was right while these hypocrites did not care (most of them anyways) and just wanted to prove their own self righteousness. There are obvious parallels to the questioning of Christ and parishes asking him if he is GOD then condemning him for the truth. Also as I said before intolerance and 12 angry men come to mind. Drake have you seen it on the big screen or accompanied with an orchestra. I need to one day. Also, this is like one gorgeous minimalist painting after the next cut seamlessly together. Capital M masrerpiece.
@m — yes- the plan is to do more and more linking as I update the pages to make it easier so people don’t have to search for a movie or director. Sorry. It is a work in progress as always– hopefully getting better. And yes- for sure- I plan on reviewing them all.
It is obviously one of the best films ever made. now my question is suppose falconetti gave a bad performance in the film and was very wooden or lacked charisma or something. do you think it would still be a masterpiece, a top 20 film or do you think that the face as canvas is part of dreyer’s masterful mise en scene, and that it is the most integral part of the film. i just thought of this and i don’t know. would it ruin the great emotions of the film. we’d still have the uncontested minimalist production and editing. this is a question not just for Drake but anyone.
@D.W.Griffith- I think it is still a masterpiece, we’ll never know (thankfully) and I’m sure there is one outlier out there I’m not thinking of but if a film is considered a masterpiece because of an acting performance, then it probably isn’t a masterpiece.
@Finn- Interesting- What do you think? I don’t know if there is a hard number, but as I look over this I do believe there is a number. 50? 30? I think It is probably less- for years I thought there was no more than 5-10 choices but I’m open to the idea that there are more seats at the table for top echelon.
@Finn and @Drake – theoretically, TSPDT is the golden standard for consensus. But in their list you can find good candidates up to #50 with Stalker or #42 with In the Mood for Love (that’s just the recency bias though). On the other hand, Dreyer’s Ordet is ranked somewhere around #30, and though I haven’t watched it, I’m sure very few people actually think a case is to be made for its being the best of all time.
So I’d draw from Drake’s ranking which I consider more accurate and thereby more condensed when it comes to quality. According to the list on the Cinema Archives, Godard’s Breathless is #20 of all time, and that’s where I’d draw the line. I believe that all films from #1 to #20 on Drake’s list (all those that I’ve watched, that is) could be considered the greatest cinematic achievement of all time. Add a few other ones, like Persona, which I think is underrated at #34 or Nostalgia, which I’ve heard the ones who are really big on Tarkovsky often consider the best (though I haven’t seen it myself), and I think you have 25-30 perfectly solid cases for the best film of all time.
@Georg – I’ve seen Ordet twice now and feel pretty good saying Drake is underrating it; admittedly, however – though I will need time to think after my second viewing today – I do not think it is a top 100 film of all time (#35 on TSPDT).
Also, I wanted to add, that this is where subjectivity comes into play. I’m generally of the opinion that there is objectivity in art (all art) when it comes to production design, dedication to an aesthetic theory or movement, atmosphere, lighting, narrative, mise en scene, form etc etc. Those various factors, either technical or related to art theory and history, render a film a masterpiece, obviously regardless of taste. When distinguishing between top tier masterpieces though, subjectivity takes the lead, and we favour those that resonate the most with us.
PS: Forgot to mention Last Year at Marienbad, also underrated on TSPDT (and it’s top 100, imagine…)
Interesting. So a film with legitimate claim for being the single greatest of all time should have following characteristics
1. It’s overall greatness (obviously)
2. The rules it broke & the rules it made or the newness it brought
3. It’s revolutionary impact on cinema
4. Timelessness of it’s themes
So you have Breathless that broke the rules of traditional editing , made it’s own rules thereby not only revolutionizing cinema but also making many things possible.
Last Year at Marienbad revolutionized traditional story-structure.Vertigo or psycho revolutionized traditional narrative. Open City & Bicycle Thieves invented a way of storytelling. They revolutionized, inspired, are timeless and not to mention, all time greats. So yeah such movies have a shot. And also a film like Russian arc which is revolutionary, but not as great, can’t have a shot.
I’m pretty uninformed about cinema before 50s but there has to be films that revolutionized color, camera movements & many other things.
@Finn – I don’t know about the Rules of the Game yet, though I’m really eager to watch it. As for Potemkin, I slightly disagree. In the sense that its value (by today’s standards) is less cinematic and more historical. I realise that everything should be evaluated in the context of its time, but I don’t really believe that when given a choice between Persona and Potemkin, I’d rank Potemkin higher.
@Finn – definitely. All I’m saying is that I don’t think Potemkin makes strong enough a case for itself. You also mentioned Intolerance, and I think I could understand that a bit more
I agree. Intolerance has a stronger case artistically than Potemkin. Griffith’s achievements with parallel editing and narrative structure are almost unparalleled, even by today’s standards.
Our favorite silent and 20s film – Joan (phenomenal film. I agree with you. This may be the greatest movie of all time.)
Our favorite (mostly) B and W film and of the 80s – Raging Bull
Our favorite 1960s film- 2001
It will only be a matter of time before 2001 becomes your favorite color film and your favourite movie of all time. Haha.
I’m not 100% sure it isn’t the greatest film of all-time and I only feel that way about 4-5 films right now.
So when you update your rankings, will joan be a top 5 film of all time?
What are the other 5 movies you feel could be considered the Greatest of all time?
@Azman– yeah so we agree on the best film of the 1920’s, best film of the 1960’s, and the best film of the 2010’s I think– that’s remarkable. We should keep this in mind the next time we disagree on a film or director. haha.
Yes- Joan will be in my top 5 the next time I update it. Right now the 4 films I think have the most legitimate claim to the best of all-time is this, 2001, Apocalypse Now and The Searchers
I think raging bull can legitimately play claim to being the GOAT movie also. You said 2001 , searchers, apocalypse and joan will be in your top 5. Does this mean Raging Bull has slipped out of your top 5? You also didnt mention we have the same 80s favorite movie. Does this mean Raging Bull has seriously dropped down in your rankings? That seriously baffles me. I love that movie.
I’m sorry for my grammar and spelling ?. I usually write these comments in a hurry and when I read them over I cringe a bit because they don’t make sense and they are so poorly written. Haha.
@Azman – no worries– If you haven’t noticed my grammar and spelling could be better… I’m going to buy a software to help but in the interim I’m usually in a hurry as well.
Raging Bull hasn’t fallen for me– watched it again in 2019– I’m just ready to put Joan of Arc ahead of it. I didn’t realize it was your #1 of the 1980’s — we share that, too.
So what would your top 5 is passion, apocalypse, 2001, the searchers, does this mean citizen kane is no longer a top 5 film for you? Or did Raging bull drop out of the top 5? Or is a completely new film you are going to include in your top 5?
@ Azman– haven’t given it much thought and probably won’t again for awhile– another year or two— but I didn’t see any reason to move Raging Bull down when I revisited it just last year .It is a brilliant piece of work. The move up for Dreyer’s Joan of Arc is more about how good that film is– not about anything wrong with Raging Bull.
I’m sorry to bother you again, i never realized there were multiple versions, i was trying to see it, but I couldn’t figure out which one is correct.
Which one should I see?
01h 36min or 1h 21min?, I even found versions of 1h 22min 19s and 1 h 50 min
@Aldo- no worries– so the last few times I’ve seen it I believe it is the criterion version — 1 hour 21 minutes
@Aldo, there are different soundtrack versions too. There is a version on vimeo with a great soundtrack and it is 1 hr 30 minutes long. I’ve seen that and it is what I consider one of the greatest movies of all time.
There is also an opera soundtrack and no soundtrack at all.
@Drake, what soundtrack do you watch the movie with?(since Dreyer never actually decided on a soundtrack)
This film is unreal. I honestly don’t even know where to begin. The very first thing I’ve noticed is the way that it is filmed. The close-ups that as you’ve articulated perfectly above greatly enhance the characterisations, all the different angles from which Dreyer films the faces, all the frames, and of course the mise-en-scene. It is all unreal. This movie is truly a piece of art and one of the very best. And to think it all happened more than 90 years ago. It must have been groundbreaking, I don’t believe anyone had ever seen anything like this. It is probably one of the most important pieces of cinema, not only artistically but historically as well.
I also wanted to point out a couple of more technical observations as well. I don’t know what was the stance toward nudity in film back in the 20’s, but I imagine things were very strict and puristic to a great extent. So, I noticed there is a shot of a woman breastfeeding, I think, so I guess you could say it was also a very provocative piece of work back then. Also, I think you are right that the film was lost for a long time, but if up until 1978, then how was it possible for Goddard to use parts of it in Vivre Sa Vie?
@Georg- thanks for sharing. So happy to hear we’re on the same page. I think “lost” is a bit misleading on my part– sorry. It wasn’t completely lost- there were versions of it available– but not the preferred version by Dreyer.
@Drake- haha, no worries. Thank you actually for clearing that up because to be honest, I am a little lost with all the versions and the history behind the movie and how it reached us today.
I always think of Falconetti in a weird way. This woman came in, gave us one of the top 5 female acting performances of all time (if not the best), and just disappeared. She left all the way to South America, and spent the rest of her years there, in anonymity, battling mental illness. It is rather tragic should you think of it. But I guess it somehow adds to the legend of the film and her work in it.
Wow just watched it for the second time today. Let me confess I liked it a lot when I forst saw it or I respected it is better. I watched it on my computer about a year back with no subtitles or music. That was no way to watch it. I watched it on my flat screen today with the opera blaring. I was also unable to appreciate falconetti because I was tricked by the myth that acting must be ‘naturalistic’ like Casey Affleck or someone, not thought provoking or interesting. I have definitely come around. This is a humanist masterpiece. The acting is near perfect not just her but the 0riests as well especially the one that looks like the old man from twelve angry men, who tells her to trust him on order of the king. And the kid who looks unmistakably like buster Keaton. The edits, blown away. Where the guy throws down the mace. This film could have been super theatrical but Dreyer directs Masterup camera movement and the close ups are the best I’ve ever seen. I still think Intolerance is a better silent film, but this is a complete masterpiece. My only problem is I am a believer in Christ but reject catholic theology. The way I read it Joan was deceived and a heretic but she was clueless of it and just wanted to do what was right while these hypocrites did not care (most of them anyways) and just wanted to prove their own self righteousness. There are obvious parallels to the questioning of Christ and parishes asking him if he is GOD then condemning him for the truth. Also as I said before intolerance and 12 angry men come to mind. Drake have you seen it on the big screen or accompanied with an orchestra. I need to one day. Also, this is like one gorgeous minimalist painting after the next cut seamlessly together. Capital M masrerpiece.
Drake also can you consider ever linking 500 best films to the reviews like with directors page. Do you think you’ll ever review all 500 films.
@m — yes- the plan is to do more and more linking as I update the pages to make it easier so people don’t have to search for a movie or director. Sorry. It is a work in progress as always– hopefully getting better. And yes- for sure- I plan on reviewing them all.
@m- thanks for sharing your thoughts. I have not seen it on the big screen and/or with an orchestra- that would be amazing.
also, how d you feel about the riot at the end of the film. i like it but i feel like the movie could have ended with joan death
It is obviously one of the best films ever made. now my question is suppose falconetti gave a bad performance in the film and was very wooden or lacked charisma or something. do you think it would still be a masterpiece, a top 20 film or do you think that the face as canvas is part of dreyer’s masterful mise en scene, and that it is the most integral part of the film. i just thought of this and i don’t know. would it ruin the great emotions of the film. we’d still have the uncontested minimalist production and editing. this is a question not just for Drake but anyone.
Of course the acting is part of what makes the movie great.
Yeah but the mise en scene is as great as anything on film.
@D.W.Griffith- I think it is still a masterpiece, we’ll never know (thankfully) and I’m sure there is one outlier out there I’m not thinking of but if a film is considered a masterpiece because of an acting performance, then it probably isn’t a masterpiece.
@Drake – In your opinion what films have a legitimate claim for being the single greatest of all time?
@Finn- Interesting- What do you think? I don’t know if there is a hard number, but as I look over this I do believe there is a number. 50? 30? I think It is probably less- for years I thought there was no more than 5-10 choices but I’m open to the idea that there are more seats at the table for top echelon.
I’m not sure. I think we should open this up for debate.
@Finn and @Drake – theoretically, TSPDT is the golden standard for consensus. But in their list you can find good candidates up to #50 with Stalker or #42 with In the Mood for Love (that’s just the recency bias though). On the other hand, Dreyer’s Ordet is ranked somewhere around #30, and though I haven’t watched it, I’m sure very few people actually think a case is to be made for its being the best of all time.
So I’d draw from Drake’s ranking which I consider more accurate and thereby more condensed when it comes to quality. According to the list on the Cinema Archives, Godard’s Breathless is #20 of all time, and that’s where I’d draw the line. I believe that all films from #1 to #20 on Drake’s list (all those that I’ve watched, that is) could be considered the greatest cinematic achievement of all time. Add a few other ones, like Persona, which I think is underrated at #34 or Nostalgia, which I’ve heard the ones who are really big on Tarkovsky often consider the best (though I haven’t seen it myself), and I think you have 25-30 perfectly solid cases for the best film of all time.
@Georg – I’ve seen Ordet twice now and feel pretty good saying Drake is underrating it; admittedly, however – though I will need time to think after my second viewing today – I do not think it is a top 100 film of all time (#35 on TSPDT).
Also, I wanted to add, that this is where subjectivity comes into play. I’m generally of the opinion that there is objectivity in art (all art) when it comes to production design, dedication to an aesthetic theory or movement, atmosphere, lighting, narrative, mise en scene, form etc etc. Those various factors, either technical or related to art theory and history, render a film a masterpiece, obviously regardless of taste. When distinguishing between top tier masterpieces though, subjectivity takes the lead, and we favour those that resonate the most with us.
PS: Forgot to mention Last Year at Marienbad, also underrated on TSPDT (and it’s top 100, imagine…)
Interesting. So a film with legitimate claim for being the single greatest of all time should have following characteristics
1. It’s overall greatness (obviously)
2. The rules it broke & the rules it made or the newness it brought
3. It’s revolutionary impact on cinema
4. Timelessness of it’s themes
So you have Breathless that broke the rules of traditional editing , made it’s own rules thereby not only revolutionizing cinema but also making many things possible.
Last Year at Marienbad revolutionized traditional story-structure.Vertigo or psycho revolutionized traditional narrative. Open City & Bicycle Thieves invented a way of storytelling. They revolutionized, inspired, are timeless and not to mention, all time greats. So yeah such movies have a shot. And also a film like Russian arc which is revolutionary, but not as great, can’t have a shot.
I’m pretty uninformed about cinema before 50s but there has to be films that revolutionized color, camera movements & many other things.
Excellent answers. I think that Intolerance, The Rules of the Game and Potemkin are also in the conversation
@Finn – I don’t know about the Rules of the Game yet, though I’m really eager to watch it. As for Potemkin, I slightly disagree. In the sense that its value (by today’s standards) is less cinematic and more historical. I realise that everything should be evaluated in the context of its time, but I don’t really believe that when given a choice between Persona and Potemkin, I’d rank Potemkin higher.
I don’t disagree with you. I just think that judging a film on the standards of today is irrelevant.
I think the cinematic merits of a film are much more important than its historical value
@Finn – definitely. All I’m saying is that I don’t think Potemkin makes strong enough a case for itself. You also mentioned Intolerance, and I think I could understand that a bit more
I agree. Intolerance has a stronger case artistically than Potemkin. Griffith’s achievements with parallel editing and narrative structure are almost unparalleled, even by today’s standards.