best film: Barry Lyndon from Stanley Kubrick
- There are a few films that may be equal to Barry Lyndon’s visual beauty (from Days of Heaven, In the Mood For Love, others– including works from the great Kubrick himself) – but none that are comfortably superior.
- Many aspects of Kubrick’s masterpiece are worthy of praise, but I want to get to the main point quickly- the film is driven by a rigorous, formal, visual approach using technology (the zoom lens) on masterful compositions. The Shining is largely driven by tracking shots (through the advent and development of the Steadicam) and here it is the camera zoom, and it has never been used better (though Altman in the other massive 1975 masterpiece Nashville is close). In 50+ compositions, Kubrick either starts in a close-up and slowly zooms out to reveal a gorgeously mounted cinematic landscape painting, or, he starts in the wider shot with the gorgeously mounted cinematic painting, and slowly zooms in for a closer look.
- Kubrick uses the purposefully trivial titles for his two-part (with epilogue) epic
- brilliant use of Piano Trio in E Flat by Schubert
- Filming took place over the course of two years and 300 days—many shots taking 25, 50, 100 times- certainly more David Fincher (Kubrick predates Fincher obviously) than Eastwood
The opening frame is a duel—which is fitting. It is a frame Kubrick holds, there are varying depths of field on display– different natural level elevations and obstructions giving it a rich complexity
- The wry voice-over from Michael Hordern lets Kubrick’s camera zoom in and out (there are a few camera movements but not many) and there isn’t honestly that much in-scene dialogue to catch for a 3+ hour film. The lack of in-scene dialogue lets the lens float in and out on the models holding poses. Certainly, it feels like it has to be an influence on Roy Andersson. Von Trier is a big admirer of the film. We have the savage voice-over (Dogville) and those establishing shots that he uses as chapter breaks in Breaking the Waves. Kubrick is clearly influenced by the work of Thomas Gainsborough with those landscapes.
- Kubrick constantly defuses the narrative by letting Hordern’s voice spoil the story– giving away the plot points before they happen. “as you’ll soon see”. Kubrick even cuts off his own narrator mid-sentence during an obituary (telling you how he feels about death) just before the intermission
- It is all a charade to Kubrick- the cold, pristine, instructive way he delivers the life of this man—the absurdity of the seven-year war backdrop, love, lust, greed, it is all undercut by his caustic sense of humor and nihilistic worldview. Cynically, the ups and downs of Barry Lyndon’s life are revealed, “wandering” used in the text several times. A chilly randomness to this life
Much has been made of the triumph of natural lighting and Kubrick’s work with candles and the praise and hype is all warranted…makes for a companion piece to Eyes Wide Shut — Christmas lights in Eyes Wide Shut and the work with candles here
- There are too many sublime cinematic paintings to grab. the 75th best frame in Barry Lyndon is stronger than the best composition from most films. There are somewhere between 50 and 100 and most held for an enjoyably long duration. . The introduction of Lady Lyndon hallway through the film almost exactly at 92 minutes with the tracking shot and the zoom in on here didn’t make the cut, the shot of the pool and the gardens at 98 minutes that looks like it is out of Last Year at Marienbad didn’t either. The shot of two in close-up with O’Neal smoking at 105 minutes doesn’t either.
- Several times we get the magnificent castle reflecting off the pond shot establishing shot
- Awe-inspiring costume work and period detail and specificity—this has passed every film before it in this regard and influenced every period film since from Marie Antoinette to The Favourite
- Makes for a companion piece with A Clockwork Orange and not just because of the camera zooms. This novel (from Thackeray) is said to be the first one without a hero and that had to appeal to Kubrick
At the 140-minute mark- the shot of his son on his lap with the massive painting backdrop is a jaw-dropper
- At 143- minutes the dining table natural light pouring in composition — spectacular
There is a one-minute long tracking shot of his step-son walking into the bar to challenge him to a duel at the 160 minute mark. O’Neal is passed out on the chair with other drunks posing. It is one of the greatest single frames in cinema history
- Starts with a duel, ends with a duel—we get the windows with the light pouring in for the final battle
most underrated: Fox and His Friends from R.W. Fassbinder. Fox and His Friends from Fassbinder features not only his immaculate direction and work behind the camera (indeed this is Fassbinder’s third time in four years with at top 10 of the year film) but a brilliant lead performance from him as well. The melodrama itself is a tragic fable clearly influenced by Douglas Sirk- but frankly this is even more depressing and despairing than anything Sirk made. It is not in the TSPDT consensus top 1000 and should be.
it isn’t just the melodrama genre that is Sirkian, the obscuring of the frame here on the left, the interior design work. Visconti is another hero of Fassbinder. And this shot would be at home in any number of the great Italian master’s films
don’t be fooled by the denim and bell-bottoms, this is a beautiful tragic pose flanked by a sea of deep cobalt blue
most overrated: There are a few ways to go here. I’ve seen Jeanne Dielman once and didn’t archive it- so that is probably the choice (it is #85 on the TSPDT consensus). I hope with a second viewing I’ll find more to admire. I think it borders on the experimental line of where I divide fiction cinema. There are films on the experimental side of that line (the Stan Brakhage/ Maya Deren space) and this could be one. I certainly praise and appreciate slow cinema (I admire Tarkovsky and Bela Tarr amongst others) and glacial formal rigor is up my alley as well, but this is hours of a woman cleaning a house and I couldn’t pick up on the stylistic, cinematographically or visual rhythms and interesting shots/editing. As I said I’ll watch again but for now I can’t get behind it. The ranking for Angelopoulos’ The Traveling Players is also high on the TSPDT list (#204) for a film that does not land in my top 10 of 1975. I’ve seen the film, but it was fifteen years ago on some terrible bootleg copy—so there’s no grade and I really can’t count it.
gems I want to spotlight: Nashville is a massive artistic achievement and the crown jewel in the Altman oeuvre. It has a large ensemble, overlapping dialogue, wonderfully used camera zooms to capture exactly what Altman wants to eavesdrop on and edit in scene. It is ambitious filmmaking and clearly has influenced everyone from PT Anderson (there’s no Magnolia without Altman) to John Sayles (Lonestar, Matewan). Nashville is comic, tragic, and politically potent. If you want a few recommendations off the top 10 list both Three Days of the Condor and The Day of the Locust are worth seeking out. Condor is a taut political thriller just a notch below The Parallax View with stellar performances from Redford, Dunaway and a few key scenes with von Sydow. Schlesinger’s gloriously messy Day of the Locust has some exceptional cinematography from Conrad Hall and a big, blowout massacre climax that has certainly stuck with me.
Sydney Pollack was never the artist Pakula was, but this is inspired direction and camera placement here in Three Days of the Condor
one of the best shots of 1975 comes off the top 10 of the year– this shot from The Day of the Locust from John Schlesinger (making interesting films for more than a decade now in 1975) and Conrad Hall (DP)
trends and notables:
- 1975 is another magnificent year. The front-half of the decade is superior to the back-half. 1975 alone includes eight (8) films in the top forty (40) roughly of the 1970’s decade.
The year features two rare-bird sightings here with both a Tarkovsky (Mirror here) film and a Kubrick film in a single year. There’s no way anyone could’ve known it at the time (ok maybe Kubrick’s 300 day shooting schedule was an indicator) but each of these masters would only have three films remaining after this
truly a cinematic painting here in Tarkovsky’s Mirror. Spielberg and his DP Vilmos Zsigmond would echo this shot in 1977’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind
- I mention this above in the gem section but 1975 is the top of the summit for the great Robert Altman
Jaws clearly has a big impact on the box office (unlike The Godfather and The Exorcist he avoids the R-rating), the summer movie. It is great artistic and stylistic achievement in its own right- a breakthrough for the young prodigy Spielberg (who still isn’t 30).
the famous dolly zoom
Salo is Pasolini’s last film- it was supposed to be the first in a three-part series (trilogy of death)- he was murdered weeks before the premiere
Pasolini had his debut in 1961, Accattone– one of his strongest efforts, and Teorema is a worthy candidate, but with the astonishing artistry on display in Salo– it is clearly his magnum opus.
The wallpaper use is sublime throughout but in particular the wild wallpaper used when the pianist jumps out of the window
repeated shots of characters in profile looking out the window in jaw-droppingly splendid interior-designed arrangements
1975 marks the height of the “early, funny” films of Woody Allen with Love and Death. He’d take 1976 off behind the camera (a rarity for him) and when he’d emerge in 1977 he’d have a new sort of tone and style in a little film called Annie Hall
three very noteworthy auteurs make their first foray into the archives in 1975: David Cronenberg (Shivers), Terry Gilliam (co-directing Monty Python and the Holy Grail) and Peter Weir (Picnic at Hanging Rock)– shown here
this shot, from Weir’s film, is a precursor to the shot del Toro uses in Pan’s Labyrinth link here
best performance male: What a year 1975 is for Jack Nicholson. It is really the culmination of an impressive run that started back in 1969 with Easy Rider. Nicholson would be in great films before 1975 (Chinatown for one) and after (The Shining)- but to be both the center of a masterpiece Antonioni film (and like Red Desert with Vitti—Jack really dominates the screen solo here as far as acting goes) and gives the ultimate, “Jack” large-persona performance and Oscar-win in Forman’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Jack gives two of the best three performances of 1975. The other, is the remarkable Al Pacino, who is having quite the decade himself. Pacino’s work in Dog Day Afternoon is so polar opposite to The Godfather: Part II. Here in Lumet’s film he’s frazzled, spitting—with the great “Attica” scene. Pacino now has mentions in this category in 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975—obviously more that most great actors have in a lifetime. Robert Shaw is next. I actually think the first half of the film is stronger than the second but the first half is all Spielberg showing off (and I’m not complaining)—the second half is almost all Shaw and the capper is the USS Indianapolis monologue. I think Richard Dreyfuss and Roy Scheider can sort of split a mention here- both are great—and I’ll give a split mention to the two-hander in John Huston’s The Man Who Would Be King. James Bond (Sean Connery) and Harry Palmer (Michael Caine) are very good. Lastly—the curious case of Ryan O’Neal. He’s in just about every scene of a three-hour Kubrick masterpiece and the best film of the year. I think I’m going to omit O’Neal here. You could write an entire paper on Ryan O’Neal and whether he’s the right actor for the job, or it is a good performance. I’ve seen the film five times and I don’t think it is either a brilliant performance or a horrible one. I do wish another actor was in the role and that’s not a sign of being worthy of a spot here. Apparently, Warner Brokers told Kubrick he has to have a top 10 star at the time of financing to back the film and given the age of the character it was either going to be O’Neal or Redford and Redford turned it down. With a lesser budget and better actor I don’t think we have the same film. O’Neal certainly doesn’t ruin the film (far from it given the masterpiece status) but he isn’t one of the major reasons it is on that level either.
this from The Passenger, part of Jack’s unassailable 1975 1-2 punch that included his Oscar-winning performance in Once Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest as well. PTA would modify a version of this shot for The Master with Phoenix overhanging the ship
Pacino’s “Attica” moment from Dog Day Afternoon. It is rarely rare that acting alone can give me cinematic chills
best performance female: It is frustratingly quiet here. Of course, I don’t blame the actresses, there were so many with immense talent during this era, I blame the system—but regardless- there simply isn’t much here. I’m going to agree with the Academy here and go with Louise Fletcher in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Her adversary in the film, Nicholson, is all color and animation—but Fletcher’s more thankless role is poised and iron clad– Fletcher is brilliant at it. She’s the establishment. Behind her the capable Lily Tomlin gives the best single performance in Nashville (an ensemble so deep it’s really hard to pick from for these categories).
Lily Tomlin here in Altman’s Nashville. Altman’s camera dives in via his patented zoom in the single greatest acting moment of Altman’s masterpiece
top 10
- Barry Lyndon
- Nashville
- The Passenger
- Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom
- Jaws
- One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
- Dog Day Afternoon
- Mirror
- The Man Who Would Be King
- Fox and His Friends
The finale of The Passenger is genius—you cannot escape fate—slow moving tracking shot, there are bars which create the framing, the old man, the dog, the kid, Maria showing up again, police coming in, the sound design is impeccable- it had to influence Cuaron’s Roma— we have the beautiful structure as a backdrop. The camera moves out into the street through the bars, pivots, goes back through the bars to show death, fate, certainty—it is one of cinema’s greatest single shots. It lasts seven minutes. And this shot is one of the reasons I know what the world “penultimate” means.
a sublime frame here from Antonioni– Almodovar actually has a similar shot in 2019’s Pain and Glory – link here
from Dario Argento’s Deep Red-– this masterful shot is just one of many from from the film
another here from Argento. For horror enthusiasts it is often cited as the first slasher film– somewhere between Powell’s Peeping Tom and Carpenter’s Halloween
the meeting of high art and genre cinema from Argento yet again
from Truffaut’s The Story of Adele H.– quietly, Truffaut has two films already from the 1970’s in the top 10 of their respective year (The Wild Child, Two English Girls) and two films very close to their years’ top 10 (Adele H, Day For Night)
Archives, Directors, and Grades
| Barry Lyndon – Kubrick | MP |
| Cousin cousine – Tacchella | R |
| Deep Red- Argento | HR |
| Dersu Uzala – Kurosawa | R/HR |
| Dog Day Afternoon- Lumet | MS/MP |
| Fox and His Friends- Fassbinder | HR |
| French Connection II– Frankenheimer | R |
| Hard Times- W. Hill | R |
| Jaws- Spielberg | MP |
| Love and Death- Allen | HR |
| Monty Python and the Holy Grail – Gilliam, T. Jones | R/HR |
| Nashville- Altman | MP |
| Night Moves- A. Penn | R |
| One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest- Forman | MP |
| Picnic at Hanging Rock- Weir | |
| Rollerball – Jewison | R |
| Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom – Pasolini | MP |
| Shampoo-Ashby | HR |
| Shivers – Cronenberg | R |
| Smile- Ritchie | R |
| The Day of the Locust- Schlesinger | HR |
| The Fortune- M. Nichols | |
| The Man in the Glass Booth- Hiller | R |
| The Man Who Would Be King- Huston | HR/MS |
| Mirror – Tarkovsky | MS |
| The Passenger – Antonioni | MP |
| The Story of Adele H.- Truffaut | HR |
| The Sunshine Boys- Ross | R |
| The Traveling Players- Angelopoulos | |
| The Wilby Conspiracy – Nelson | R |
| The Wind and the Lion- Milius | R |
| Three Days of the Condor- Pollack | HR |
*MP is Masterpiece- top 1-3 quality of the year film
MS is Must-See- top 5-6 quality of the year film
HR is Highly Recommend- top 10 quality of the year film
R is Recommend- outside the top 10 of the year quality film but still in the archives
What did you think about Theo Angelopoulos?
There are many online websites with HD quality streaming. Also your local library may have DVDs of the movie you want. If not just use the streaming sites. They are legal (streaming is legal. Downloading or providing free streams is not), HD quality and absolutely free. They even have subtitles and dubbed movies! In fact I have no idea how else you would be watching classic, old movies.
@Drake
There’s a channel on YouTube called SnobCinema. It has 10 Angelopoulos films (from the 13, but I think he’ll upload the other 3 in the near future) with English subtitles. It’s not high quality but I don’t think it’s so bad that it is hard to watch.
@Drake-Yep, I mean I have the same problem with some directors and it drives me angry. So you probably now that Greek Cinema is not very strong, Dogtooth is regarded the best Greek film of the century and I’m not ready to call it a masterpiece yet, other countries have like 3 masterpieces in a decade. I consider Angelopoulos the greatest Greek filmmaker and I’ve seen all of his films in our local cinephile club, here in Greece its easier to find his films. Most of his films are in my top 15 of their years and some of them land in the top 10 or top 8. I consider The Travelling Players to be the best Greek film of all time, Angelopoulos’s best and a Masterpiece, one of the few Greece has produced if not the only. I think it deserves a place in your top 10 if someday you can finally watch it. My main problem with his films is that they are very political and I think cinema is beyond sending messages about politics, cinema is to make artisticall achievements through technical mastery. The purpose of the filmmaker must be artistry and if he wants to tell a message then it must be something that stays strong throughout the ages, if not then the film will be outdated in two decades. Angelopoulos made films expressing his thoughts on the politics that were going on at that time, now the message is not strong. So I wouldn’t say his films have aged like other masterpieces of the 70s but what I said about him mustn’t make you think that his film aren’t artistically strong, the opposite actually he has achieved artistry like no other in Greece. If you ever get the chance you must not miss his work. I think he deserves to be in your top 100 directors.
Isn’t Z (kind of )a Greek movie? It is made by a Greek- French director, the music composer is Greek and it is about Greece. I know that Z is technically a French movie, but it is Easily the best film about Greece. Its one of the best political thrillers of all time and its very,very highly regarded by most critics and by me.
Where would 1975 as a year rank among your best movie years? top 10?
Where would the 1970s rank as a year among your best movie decades?
I’m also interested to know, 1975 has 5 MP, 1960-8, but I don’t see you mentioning it much in the best years of cinema.
Is 1975 among the best?
Gilliam’s Monty Python??
i dont know what article it was o but my two cents o bad critics. i don’t think a critic is bad if they disagree with you. i love ebert but my favorite critic is armond white. sometimes his reviews make me mad but he has offered me so many new ideas to ponder and ways to look at movies, movies to compare them too, and a deeper look at a movies ideology. i think that is what makes a critic good when they offer something of their perspective and new things to think about
@m— I disagree here. “I don’t think a critic is bad if they disagree with you”. I think the main thing a critic must do is to evaluate the film right. It’s not about disagreeing with me either, film is largely objective. For example, we have two people. The one thinks 2001: A Space Odyssey is a masterpiece and the other thinks it’s one of the worst movies ever. I can’t accept that in this case we have something subjective like “ok, it’s his opinion so he’s not wrong “. The value of 2001 is objectively known, it’s a Giant masterpiece, so the one is right and the other is wrong.
I’m sorry, but I think Armond White is in the conversation for worst critic in the world in my opinion. I think a critic must 1) Find the true value of the film 2) Know how to express himself (writing skills).
“when they offer something of their perspective and new things to think about” Many good critics do that, but that has to do with the evaluation of the film again. When a critic trashes almost everything his perspective is false many times. As for “the new things to think about” they are expressed by someone who’s reviews are most of the time, really bad, so his thoughts, what makes us think and all, don’t represent tha value of the film.
Everything connects to evaluation, that’s the first thing a critic must do. In my opinion Armond White doesn’t know to evaluate right. How about you Drake (and everyone else on the blog ), what makes a good critic for you ? What’s your opinion of Armond White?
Since you asked for everyone’s opinion on the blog, here is mine: Drake is right. We do (very) occasionally differ on films. However, we must have valid reasons as to why we don’t like, or like, a film most people do. For example, Drake expresses good reasons as to why he does not like Jeanne Dielmann on this page. It makes sense eventhough many critics would disagree. Drake gives valid reasons as to why he thinks it is overrated. The are also many reasons why it is a terrific movie and most critics who like Jeanne would talk about the things that make it so great. Fair enough.
Pauline Kael dislikes 2001: A Space Odyssey. That’s fine in my opinion ( It is probably the GOAT movie in my opinion). However, the reasons she gives for not liking it are outrageous. I don’t agree with them. So i dislike her opinion on 2001. (She occasionally wrote great reviews too. Like her review for la jetee).
Also, I find it slightly disrespectful that M compared Almond Milk to the late, great Roger Ebert. No critic can really compare to Ebert. No one on this blog or no professional critic either especially not White or Kael.
i’m sorry if you think im disrespecting ebert. i love ebert, he was the first critic i caredabout. he was the critic that i learned of when i got into movies like a year and a half ago. Before discovering Ebert i just thought criticism wasn’t important and that they are writing about art, but ebert helped me realize that criticism is art. whenever i watched a movie or wanted to watch one i looked up ebert. i just love white also, he is the only critic alive that i look up every few hours to see if he has a new take on a film.
I’m not sure it’s fair to tar Kael with the same brush as White. She was wrong a lot, but still is a titanic figure in the history of film criticism. White, by contrast, seems to exist as a critic troll… almost as performance art. The two aren’t equivalent in the slightest.
Yes. Kael is much better than White but pales in comparison to Ebert. I would actually trust Drake’s reviews a lot more than Kael’s.
Kael has been dead wrong, but she’s also been dead right. There’s a reason why she’s so divisive. I love the way that she writes and there are / were few critics that could convey what a film was about through language as accurately and poetically as she did. This is on McCabe and Mrs Miller: “a beautiful pipe dream of a movie – a fleeting, almost diaphanous vision of what frontier life might have been” That’s beautiful. She allowed her tastes to influence her reviews more than objectivity calls for, but when she got the film right, there was nobody who could put up a better review on it. More so than most critics of that period, I am very eager to see what she thought of a film, so her honesty and acidity do resonate (with me at least). She’s not the best, but I quite like her work and she definitely left her mark.
If we’re talking strictly evaluation I trust Drake more than any critic you could name. To be charitable towards @M however, there is more to criticism than just evaluation.
I agree with Wesley Morris… maybe 60% of the time? But when he writes about film he brings film to life.
Good choice. My favorite is Roger Ebert. Not only are his choices very similar to mine, but his reviews are also extremely well written.
In my opinion, I think it’s fair to say, that Ebert is the GOAT. (I’m not saying this only because our movie tastes are similar. There are many other reasons too.). If you google any movie, ebert’s reviews and ratings show up. Anyone with even a little interest in cinema, knows Roger Ebert’s name. He is the only critic in Hollywood’s hall of fame. He talked about movies extremely passionately and it was clear that he knew a lot about film making. Most critics try to criticise a movie and they don’t watch certain kinds of movies. Ebert would do his best to try and like a movie, even watching it multiple times to understand it. Pauline Kael for example thought her opinions were superior to other critics’ opinion and she (famously) refused to re watch any movie. Ebert was different.
Gene Siskel and Wesley Morris are the only (professional) critics (I think) that can compare to Roger Ebert.
My best friend isn’t really a cinephile but he really likes watching movies.
His three favorite movies are all from 1975.
His favorite movies are:
Rollerball, the man in the glass booth ?♂️and…………………………………………. Tarkovsky’s mirror?.
I’ve known him all my life but his taste in movies still continues to baffle me.
I do agree with him that 1975 is the best year for movies though. 1952, 1959 and a lot of other years are also really good.
I think Cazale deserves a mention for Dog Day Afternoon.
Why is rollerball not in the archives?
For me Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest is the greatest film performance of all time.Anyway if you think Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon is better than Nicholson in Cuckoos Nest and Pacino in Godfather Part 2 is better than Nicholson in Chinatown.Then why is Nicholson ranked higher than Pacino?
Pacino has a late career masterpiece in The Irishman.So maybe he should be over Nicholson.
I just watched The Passenger, it’s a perfect film, there’s no way it’s movie number 9 of 1975, It sounds very daring to say it, but for me it is a masterpiece and oh my god, the ending sequence is one of the most amazing things i’ve ever seen, although i must say that this is the least Antonioni movie I have ever seen, it’s not that I find his films boring, i love them, but this looks like a thriller, the most entertaining Antonioni movie i’ve ever seen.
Hard to say, I think it is clearly superior to One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Dog Day afternoon and could also say jaws, a shame, Spielberg’s best movie is movie # 4 from 1975, this reaffirms my assumption that 1975 is one of the best years of cinema, as for Nashville and Barry, i think it’s essentially a three horse race, i would probably place it above or below Barry i don’t know.
I must also say that Janith is right, Jack must be mentioned for his double work, he’s in a better movie here but he doesn’t act better than in One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest.
I agree also, 1975 is an extremely strong year.
I havent seen the passenger yet. I was planning on seeing it but I’ve heard it’s extremely boring till the ending. Do you really find it entertaining Aldo?.
Also you said it is “clearly” better than Dog Day Afternoon, one flew over and Jaws. Wow. That means the movie is absolutely exceptional.
@Azman. Haha who told you that? well, it’s not exactly very, very entertaining, but at least compared to the other Antonioni films, for example the Red desert if it is.
You said you’ve seen Tarkovsky movies and i would say it’s more entertaining than any Tarkovsky movie based on those who said it’s boring (The passenger)
It is absolutely exceptional, but like i say i’m not sure as for jaws
Okay really awesome I see you got it above of Barry, i took a look at TSPDT and they got Barry at 53 and Nashville at 87 it seems you invested positions, why you think Nashville is better? it is because it is more influential?, although certainly Barry is also influencing, every period movie is inspired by Barry Lyndon.
Looking for movies i found Jeanne Dielman of Akerman but i see you have it as overrated and it is quite long (201min) I would not like to be disappointed, should I see it?
Nurse Ratched as portrayed by Fletcher might be the most evil, unlikable, insensitive person in cinema and ironically it makes the character great? One of the other great villains who is 110% evil yet still doesn’t feel overdone is Amon Goeth from Schindler’s List. Daniel Plainview is also totally wretched and maybe the greatest character of the three, although he isn’t the “villain” in a narrative sense. Are there any other characters who are both as great and as purely evil as these?
@Graham – great picks. A Clockwork Orange’s Alex is definitely a good choice. Actually, Kubrick was really talented at that. You could make a case for Jack Nicholson in the Shining, though it is a little overdone, but it definitely works (more than that, it is genuinely quite effective). In the same vein, Bette Davis as Baby Jane is gloriously camp but still fascinating to watch (mostly because it’s Bette Davis doing whatever that was). But when you venture into camp, the boundaries become blurry, so I don’t think I would actually include Baby Jane here (if we had her, we might as well pick Faye Dunaway doing Joan Crawford obsessing over wire hangers). Also, those ones are not purely evil. I don’t think that Joker as a character is purely evil, so to speak, perhaps more so the personification of nihilism, but as played by Heath Ledger, he’d be a wonderful addition. I think that the way Polanski presents a form of “collective evil”, if there is such a thing, is effective. Ruth Gordon in Rosemary’s Baby is iconic as hell, and I’d also reserve a seat for John Huston in Chinatown. Both much subtler than one would expect, or remember them as. Kevin Spacey in the Usual Suspects (“the greatest trick the devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn’t exist” and chills). Also, depending on where one stands on Possession as a film and how one interprets it, Isabelle Adjani in it would be a terrific option (or what she is possessed by, or Chance – there is this theme of Faith versus Chance – on many levels it is unclear whether we’re talking about evil here, but she’s a compelling anti-heroine regardless).
Why did the academy snubbed Robert Shaw and Johnny Cazale in 1975?two great performances.
There are two hyperlinks in the page but they are not working. One under the Image of Jack with the plant and the other under the Pan’s Labyrinth like image.
I was wondering if Jack in The Passenger is up there with again Jack in Cuckoo’s Nest and Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon. That has to put it up there all time. Based on this. You have Pacino in Dog Day ranked higher than Pacino in Godfather 1. Okay then you say Pacino arguably gives a better performance than Brando in The Godfather. Then you say there is a compelling case for The Godfather to being Brando’s best. And Brando in On the Waterfront is the performance that give me pause when selecting Raging Bull as the best ever performance. This means Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon could be better than Brando in On The Waterfront. And if Jack in Cuckoos Nest and Jack in The Passenger is up there with Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon.Wow. I thought some critics like Jeffrey. M Anderson was stupid when they said Jack should have won the oscar for The Passenger and not Cuckoos Nest.
Admittedly, I’m a little overdue here, when it comes to discussing critics, but I have a few thoughts and they are as follows: Roger Ebert was the best. We all know that, most people accept it. We all have our own tastes and personal favourites, but there is no denying that he was a truly great critic. I think it boils down to his earnest love for cinema. He always saw something in every film he watched and somehow found the truth that lay within it. That was his point, what he was trying to convey. He didn’t set out to trash films and diminish their creators, as is often the case, quite unfortunately. He did underrate Wong Kar Wai a touch and he didn’t get Lynch, but that’s about it when it comes to his shortcomings. Vincent Canby was an important figure. His reviews always seem a bit balanced and his senses were mostly right. I didn’t ever feel as if he understood a film as well as Ebert and he didn’t ever convince me to watch something he really liked, but he was a very consistent, good reviewer. Being consistent is important when evaluating film critics, and he was. That said, I sometimes sensed an undercurrent of purism, as if he was a little reluctant when it came to change or a different perspective. I really like Pauline Kael, and I disagree with her takes about 50% of the time. She did write beautifully though. There were films she didn’t get and spit nothing but vitriol about them. And then there were those she did get, and wrote incredible pieces praising them. 2001 is a strong case against her though. What is certain is that she influenced many and many tried to emulate her style and presence, but nobody was quite as poignantly acidic and equally as well-read and knowledgeable as she was. A perpetually unheralded film critic is Molly Haskell (still working, I believe). She’s exceptional. Much in the vein of Ebert, she’s not bitter and she is quite open minded in her perception of film. I very often find her takes to be balanced, objective, and I mostly agree with them. I can’t find any pieces of hers right now (she worked for Vogue quite a lot) so here are a couple of passages that I came by on Rotten Tomatoes and thought were very reflective of her strengths:
“[Fanny & Alexander] is Bergman’s summing-up film; but in its mood of enchanted benevolence it represents a kind of release, as if Bergman and his demons had at last come to terms, agreed to let each other go.” (by all accounts, a perfect description)
(on Wings of Desire)
“Wenders has made a film that is elegiac but harsh, hard-edged and romantic, haunted as well as haunting, but that… holds out the promise of love as a benign coming-to-rest. ”
(on Nashville)
“I think that the power and the theme of the film lie in the fact that while some characters are more “major” than others, they are all subordinated to the music itself. It’s like a river, running through the film, running through their life. ”
(I personally think that this is as close as anyone ever got to explaining exactly how this huge ensemble piece works so well by the end. It’s putting into words what Altman does with all his ensembles, like some kind of music or rhythm runs through them)
@Drake-Looks like Tarkovsky’s film is only called Mirror not The Mirror. That seems to be an old use. Criterion is releasing it soon and they also have it as “Mirror”
@Malith- good one, thank you
It’s been argued over a lot; the reason for the confusion is the word “the,” as in a definite article, does not exist in Russian, therefore it’s unclear as to whether the proper translation would be “Mirror” or “The Mirror”; I personally use the second one, though it could be a similar artistic choice to Godard’s 4 possible meanings of “Histoire(s) du cinema”.
There are two hyperlinks on this page and they are not working. One under the image of Jack with the plant and the other under the Pan’s Labyrinth like image from Picnic at hanging rock.
@Malith- thank you for the reminder. should be fixed now
I’ve been diving deeper into cinema as an art form for a couple of years now and I thought it was high time I experienced Jeanne Dielman, 23 Commerce Quay, 1080 Brussels. The film has developed such a following, been so exhaustively discussed and analysed and proven to polarise to such a degree, I thought I should see it, just so I can have an opinion on it. I wasn’t certain what to make of the talks of it being an “immersive” or “mesmerising” viewing experience, but the film exceeded my expectations. It really is strangely hypnotic. Watching wasn’t such a chore (I’m hilarious, by the way).
The concept is rather known by this point. In Chantal Akerman’s film, the time allotted to the quotidian and the mundane is equal to that allotted to the extraordinary. In creating such a film, Akerman challenges the unspoken arrangement amongst filmmakers and filmgoers – that according to which cinema is an enlargement of life, allowing us to give images and texture to words, emotions, thoughts and ideas. Akerman does the opposite. She breaks life down to its essential ingredients, its most nondescript, ordinary and banal aspects. She does not articulate in an eloquent or artful way anything reflective of who Jeanne Dielman is. Instead she observes, carves Jeanne out from the outside in. By taking note of the technicalities of her everyday life and meticulously exploring the surface, Akerman allows us to take a glimpse at what simmers turbulently underneath. This is the portrait of a life, still.
Akerman’s approach is famously (or notoriously) distilled. Static shots (all of them), absence of music, mid-distance long takes, austerity and coldness. The film is defined by a certain formal elegance, due to its marking the end of every of the three days of its story. The frames tend to be rather symmetrical, and if not so, sharply geometrical, with framing often through doors, windows or other objects (cars etc). So, in essence even without considering its trick with the runtime, the film has a very particular aesthetic voice. If anything, I’d call attention to the use of red as a colour in the outdoor settings (this is no Red Desert, but I’d say a choice was made there). The rhythms, tone and idiosyncratic framing already render Jeanne Dielman a worthy film, even without the lengthy shots of her struggling to make coffee. Cut out 90 minutes of run-time and place in a couple of more eventful sequences and this a fine Michael Haneke film.
Watching Jeanne go about her daily routine, one wonders when she feels happy. When cooking? When eating with her ever silent, ever absent, ever distant son? On day two, she sits in a café and has a cup of coffee for five minutes. She smiles and stops for a while to think. We keep searching for a piece of Jeanne, a moment for us to connect with, a sign that she is human. Observing her, we are looking for her essence.
We watch her dress in the morning. As she buttons up her robe each day, we suddenly notice something amiss; she is overcome by despair, anguish painted over her face and usually unreadable eyes. She proceeds to open the window and carry on. What is it that keeps her standing? How does she carry on?
In those three hours, Akerman places this woman under her microscope and closely examines her world. Jeanne eats the same seven meals, every week. She sets the water to boil before she is visited by her clients (also the same seven of them every week). She goes out with her son every evening after dinner. A never ending loop – Jeanne lives and breathes through her routine, purposelessly. She wonders through life, catering to her son’s needs and self preserving. She exists to serve, and Akerman never lets us know more than that. Jeanne is someone, she has a name, an address, a child, a past. And yet we are kept from closing in, from seeing her live. We simply see her exist. We begin to wonder if she ever lived. Did she only ever care to serve? A slave to the limits of her tiny, overbearing world.
The most minor shift in the rituals of her daily routine, as in overcooking the potatoes, immediately sets her off. She turns to her son, quietly saying “I could have mashed the potatoes, but we’re having that tomorrow.” At this precise moment, we know: Jeanne is forlorn, lonely and desperate. Delphine Seyrig, in a film and role that couldn’t be further from her iconic work in Last Year at Marienbad, excels. She never wastes a moment, in all of the film’s three hour runtime, and she’s literally in every one of its frames. She uses up every nuance, breath, movement and conveys so much with no more than a downward glance or a sigh. As she slowly loses her grip, reaching her breaking point, her disconsolate sadness, her despair fill every inch of Akerman’s frames, letting us know what words could never describe. This is a great performance.
But the film’s themes are also discreetly present in other small moments. We see Jeanne talk with her son. He points to a conversation with his friend, Yan, drawing a parallel between the penis and a sword, between sex and thrusting a sword in a woman’s body. Ms Dielman dismisses his thoughts as needless worry, but we are aware that she knows all too well. At one point, he remarks “If I were a woman, I wouldn’t be able to sleep with a man if I weren’t deeply in love” to which she replies “You’ll never know. You’re not a woman.”
Akerman expands on time and minimises in space, presenting us with one of the most boldly experimental and rule-breaking films of the 20th century. It poses the question of “what it means to be a woman?” and then replies with Jeanne Dielman, who exists but lives not, who serves but loves not. Seen as a regular film it is overlong, rather uninteresting and exhausting to get through. But then again, rarely have I watched such an intellectually stimulating film. As Seyrig goes about doing chores, my mind was racing. Seen as an unprecedented defiance of filmmaking norms and a fearless exploration of one woman’s vocation, it is a groundbreaking, quietly yet purely feminist masterpiece. It all boils down to which side of the fence one chooses to find themselves.
All that being said, it would take a long time before I thought of watching Jeanne Dielman again. Plus, a film only gets so many points for being a rule breaker. I agree it’s overrated at top 100 on TSPDT, but I somehow can also see where all those critics are coming from. It is powerful not only as an achievement, but also as a statement. Let me put it this way. I don’t think I’d rank it higher than Mirror. If I were to set a glass ceiling for its placement, I am certain I don’t consider it superior to Nashville. Then again, I haven’t watched all of your top 10 here for 1975. I’ll place it somewhere between #500 and #300 in the all time scale, and be happy with it. I think it warrants a MS/MP rating, or that’s how I’d rate it. If we’re not giving extra points for the experimental and the groundbreaking (in many ways, this is post French New Wave), then I think the aesthetic gets it to HR (the framing and the approach are to me artistic choices).
@Georg- Few days ago I saw a video by cineFix listing 10 rule breaking films and this was one of them, they sang it’s praise and that peaked my interest in it. Tspdt has it on #85 (whaaaa….aat !!!) Sight and sound has it as #35 (if I’m not wrong) and today your review further propels me to go watch it immediately and I’m really looking forward to it. Seyrig’s presence further excites me, I adored her in Marienbad.
@M*A*S*H – hope you enjoy it! It’s a very interesting experience. It also gives you a lot of time to think, because watching a woman clean doesn’t exactly require a lot of attention. But it is indeed in the minor details that one notices Jeanne’s downward spiral.
@Georg- As always- thanks for sharing. It is always a pleasure to read what you have to say- even when we disagree about the merits of a work like we do here. It has been years since I’ve seen Jeanne Dielman but I did run across “Je Tu Il Elle” a few weeks ago. This is from 1974 for Akerman so it is just before Jeanne Dielman and the style is similar. Unfortunately, I did not find much to praise artistically in “Je Tu Il Elle”
@Drake – yes, I totally get that. With a film like Akerman’s, I can sort of see both sides of the coin. It’s not as if you don’t have any point in assessing it the way you do. I just happen to feel closer to the critics’ consensus in this case. I’ll make sure to check out more of her films. There’s this film she’s made with Binoche and William Hurt called a Couch in New York, and I’ve seen people praising it as a rom com brave enough to be awkward. Which seems to me as someone searching for a reason to further praise Akerman for more mainstream work. She appears to be somewhat overrated, but I’m definitely looking for more of her films – her approach is crazy interesting.
@Georg- for sure, I just with the brilliance was a little more observed than implied.
What is your grade for Picnic at Hanging Rock? Thinking about revisiting.
@James Trapp- Unfortunately I do not currently have one for Picnic at Hanging Rock- a sign I’m overdue to revisit it myself.
@Drake – just watched very impressed sort of a cross between L’Avventura (1960) in terms of narrative with an almost Malick level of focus on nature and beauty (maybe not equal to Malick but who is). Very atmospheric. On Ebert’s Great films list and I think he gets it right here.
Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) Weir
This was actually one of the first foreign films I saw years ago before I got heavy into Cinema and definitely one of the first arthouse films I had seen. It was such a breath of fresh air as it was unlike any other film I had ever seen as it was light on plot and heavy on mood and atmosphere. It has a dream like vibe similar to Days of Heaven (1978). This is achieved both by the cinematography and score. Weir achieves this by using soft focus lens, blurred footage, and slow motion. Weir uses soft focus lens to make the girls white clothing more noticeable. The white being a sign of purity, sexual repression is one of the films themes. The location as character is similar to Antonioni’s Red Desert. An ominous score and low angle shots of the rock create a haunting atmosphere filled with constant dread.
– Girls in white reading poetry accompanied by flute score
– Set on St. Valentine’s Day in 1900 in Southern Australia at an all-girls private school
– 8:20 strong shot with students looking up on Mrs. Appleyard, the schools head mistress and tough disciplinarian
– Starts with flute music, specifically two traditional Romanian panpipe pieces: “Doina: Sus Pe Culmea Dealului” and “Doina Lui Petru Unc” that give film dream like quality
– 16 min mark great low angle shot of girls at picnic followed by low angle shot of Mrs. Appleyard on 2nd floor
– 18:23 gorgeous composition followed by free moving camera capturing the picnic
– 20:21 gorgeous photography
– 25:30 shot of hanging rock, geological marvel
– 31 min strange ramblings of girls looking around, mysterious flute music is later replaced by more ominous rumblings
– 54:20 beautiful shot of multiple elevations
– 54:45 beautiful low angle shot of rocks with clouds moving and music intensity increasing
– 58:21 gorgeous shot of skyline accentuated in purple and dark blue
– 65 min mark haunting music when Australian boy finds one of missing girls
– 71 min interior of Mrs. Appleyard office is tastefully decorated
– Great dissolve edits before 83 min mark of one of the missing girls
– 90 min mark “tell us!” scream all the girls at the missing girl who returned. One critic, I forget who, speculated that this may be the director’s way addressing critics who will want a concrete answer to this mystery
– Towns people speculating on what happened, one man references Jack the Ripper as they try to make sense of disappearances
– 95-to-96-mark Mrs. Appleyard breaks down after telling Sarah she is being let go and has to go back to orphanage due to non-payments, great shots of Appleyard’s office, great mise-en-scene
– Appleyard breaks down over the course of the film, drinking more and more and seemingly feeling guilty which suggests she is not quite as monstrous as she initially seems (although still thoroughly unlikeable none the less)
– There are numerous Barry Lyndon level beautiful shots that could be in art museums.
– Similar to films like L’Avventura, Rashomon, Zodiac there is no closure and the film is stronger for it
– A Masterpiece in my opinion
“”Ofcourse, I don’t blame the actresses, there were so many with immense talent during this era, I blame the system””
Could you expand on this drake? What does this mean? Could this perhaps also be the reason why women directors have struggled? Not saying it’s the reason, just saying it definitely seems like a possibility to me.
Anyways, I also wanted to comment on one flew over. I think it’s just so great. Even literary critic Harold Bloom, who called the book One Flew Over a period piece and one of the greatest books ever written, admitted that the film achieved such a standard of greatness that it even surpassed the book in terms of quality. At its time of release, it was hailed as one of the top movies ever made.
@Azman- There were not as many great roles for women plain and simple. This is the main reason I have kept the categories separate.
I think both Fletcher and Nicolson are equals in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. What do you think @Drake?
@M*A*S*H- Interesting. Fletcher is no doubt impressive- clearly one of 1975’s finest performance- but my mind didn’t hesitate long picking Nicholson here.
@Drake- if I force myself to rank I think Fletcher is only the third best performance of the year edge given to Nicolson (Cuckoo’s nest) and Pacino (Dog Day)
Jeanne Dielman at the top in Sight and Sound. Wow.
Moonlight, Get Out, Portrait of a lady on fire and Parasite make the Top 100. Hell of a development.
very curious to know Drake’s thoughts. the criteria seems to have gone out the window, I’m not crazy about it
@AP- Yes, just seeing the list now. Still sort of processing- but these changes do not surprise me.
2022: The Year the Sight & Sound poll died.
@LeBronSmith – This paragraph tells you all you need to know
“Films knocked out of the top 100 include Orson Welles films The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) and Touch of Evil (1958), David Lean epic Lawrence of Arabia (1962), Roman Polanski’s Chinatown (1974), Francis Ford Coppola’s gangster sequel The Godfather Part II (1974), and Martin Scorsese film Raging Bull (1980)”
@James Trapp- Rough- that’s not a good look – I don’t want to pat myself on the back but I feel like the value of this site just went up a little.
Got a chuckle out of this. But I do agree-The Cinema Archives stock just skyrocketed 📈
@James Trapp – Absolutely ridiculous. Many of the voters definitely had an agenda it seems. Wonder how this will affect TSPDT? At this point, their and Drake’s list are the two I put the most stock in.
It was mentioned that Sight and Sound is the single most influential list on TSPTD. So expect TSPDT to change
I just saw Sight and Sound list and it’s so disappointing and infuriating to see identity politics penetrate to something I’m really passionate about and ruin it. The agenda is obvious, it’s all – who was a film made by or what social issue subject matter tackles (from the left side obviously). We all know why number 1 is number 1, Agnes Varda suddenly became a better author than Tarkovsky or Welles, films about sexual orientation issues, race issues, made by women or non white directors all somehow got incredible critical acclaim out of nowhere. A film “Daughters of the Dust” is apparently the 60th best film of all time and I’ve never heard of it but it’s curiously also the first film made by black woman distributed in US cinemas.. what can you say.. I don’t know if it’s sad or laughable. A really sad sad day for cinephiles, the most credible source in shaping canon became a joke and it will be interesting to see the effect of it all.
@Dzoni- I was able to catch “Daughters of the Dust” back in 2017 for the first time. I would recommend you see it for yourself- but I did not find evidence of great cinema art in it.
100% right
Unfortunately I think it is maybe even more mundane than that. It boils down to them selecting a bunch of random 35 year old adjuncts and twitter critics who aren’t film historians and they are listing off personal favorites that they otherwise think would get no representation on these lists. I don’t think most of these top tens are even the voters’ definitive top tens, more films that they personally connected to and want to bring attention to, which is fine but that criteria is what I think skewed the voting.
It’s over like “Rolling Stone’s” list two years ago it’s politics simple at that. it’s sad very sad.but “drake” is right that’s not enterily surprising even if I didn’t expect such a huge change.
@beaucamp- Unfortunately, the list does not look like it prioritizing cinema art above all else– which others may be ok with (or in some cases even supported). For me, it feels like it adds up to a lack of credibility- which is, indeed, sad.
In addition to being sad I think it’s dangerous. Whether we like it or not it’s a fact that the sight and sound poll is considered to be the most serious and most credible list in the world and therefore the most influential and that is dangerous like always when politics intervenes in the field of art.
@beaucamp – Funny I was going to bring up the Rolling Stones 500 album list myself. I do think Music is far more subjective than film so that list did not bother me nearly as much as this. Personally I think TSPDT is the best list that exists.
But yeah identity politics have inflected pretty much everything. When Blonde (2022) came out I read like 20 different reviews and only a couple of them even mentioned anything about the craftsmanship at work, I get that it was a polarizing film but almost every review focused exclusively on the content over the actual art.
@James Trapp- Yeah, but TSPDT is the going to shift dramatically now. Sight & Sound is the single most influential list on TSPDT
@Drake – That’s unfortunate, not that it will change anything in my personal film appreciation journey and I kind of knew this was inevitable as the culture wars continue to rage on. But the thing that bothers me is not someone who actually believes Get Out (2017) is better than Lawrence of Arabia (1962), that person I can simply pity or laugh at. What is far worse is someone who knows Lawrence of Arabia is the far superior film but will makes choices based on trends or allowing politics and or social issues influence their choices. Even a film like Do The Right Thing (1989) which is now ranked at # 24 which is higher than I have it but I’m not going to complain its a huge MP. But I can’t help but feel Do The Right Thing’s rise is based less on its Cinematic brilliance and more on the films content.
Has anyone seen Jeanne Dielmam?
@Matthew- Yes- and you should see it- see what you think.
So you caught it after the last update then? I noticed it wasn’t in the archives on the 1975 page
Is Jeanne Dielman not worthy of the archives then Drake? I plan on catching it as soon as possible now.
@Joel- I put this on the 1975 page – Oh, I saw it 10 or 12 years ago. Have you had a chance to see it? My decision not to archive it has as much to do with the category it belongs in as anything else – perhaps “experimental”. It certainly is not a documentary film- but if you’ve seen it I mean it uses duration as a tool as much or more than any film (at least that I’ve seen I’ve seen- and I have not seen any of the Andy Warhol experiments where he just shoots at static for hours on end). Anyways, I’m up for revisiting it- and if if the film warrants it- reevaluating- but needless to say I did not find much to praise – artistically – when I caught it the first time.
We need the updated top 1000 more than ever now!
Definitely a letdown of a list regarding Sight and Sound, feels like a lot of fake praise. On paper I would have thought that letting more critics & directors contribute would only increase the credibility and improve the list but it has done the opposite.
Does anyone know if the full 250 will come out or if they are just sticking to 100?
Oh… they widened the scope of the contributors? This could explain it then
@Matthew – Yea I think I heard it’s over twice as many contributors as the 2012 polling – you would think that would make it a more accurate / credible list but it seems to have had the opposite effect.
I remember saying I was more excited for Drake’s next update than the Sight & Sound list because I knew something like this was coming.
Some films that dropped off the top 100:
Lawrence of Arabia
Raging Bull
The Godfather: Part II
Fanny & Alexander
Gertrud
The Seventh Seal
Wild Strawberries
Aguirre: Wrath of God
The Magnificent Ambersons
Touch of Evil
Apologies, didn’t see the reply to my other comment until after I made this post. Basically mentioned the films I did.
Drake’s List became the best list out there (not d*ckriding, it’s just the truth)
Sight and Sound Poll
I love that this site is one of the few places to escape the ongoing Culture Wars and just appreciate film as an art. However, I had a few final points I wanted to make before moving on with things.
I do not know whether or not individual voters lists are made public but either way check out the article Peter Bradshaw writes on the recent Sight and Sound Poll. I like Bradshaw generally speaking but would not say he’s amongst my favorite critics. However, I think his article, which is a quick read, perfectly summarizes the general attitude of mainstream media types. He says it “deserves” the top spot but does not seem to actually believe it’s the best film ever made, although he clearly thinks quite highly of it.
Bradshaw also talks about “shaking things up” and I do get it. For younger people especially, I can imagine it probably is exciting seeing movies they are familiar with like “Get Out” replacing older films they are not as familiar with like “The Magnificent Ambersens”. Of course, if you are a true film lover, I would suspect you would want to seek out these older films like The Magnificent Ambersens and see why they receive so much acclaim. None the less we live in a 24/7 social media world with shrinking attention spans. People overreact in the moment and love making claims that something is the “best ever”, the “worst of all time”, etc.
For some people the idea of making a completely objective list is increasingly difficult. Even in sports where ranking players is more far more objective than film you see this. Michael Jordan once famously refused to endorse a politician running for office who was a Democrat because “Republicans buy sneakers too”. I forget who it was, but I remember some “analyst” and I use that word extremely loosely here, actually used this as an argument against Michael Jordan as the greatest basketball player ever. I also have heard Baseball Fall of Fame voters talk about how they voted against electing legendary players like Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire into the Hall of Fame; not because they likely took steroids but rather because they “were not good role models” for their children. One voter actually said she voted against McGwire because “how could I look my son in the eyes” the next day whatever that means. Let’s just say I have a strong suspicion as to why Chinatown didn’t make the top 100 despite not only its greatness but also its popularity.
Surely some people will defend the list and say things like “it’s just a list” which is true but at the same time I do find it to be discouraging that people cannot separate the art from the artist so to speak. And speaking before of Chinatown, even in discussing films with “non cinephiles” I almost feel pressured to give a disclaimer when praising anything from Polanski or other artists who have done terrible things in their personal lives. But no matter what I think of someone personally I can 100 percent remove that when making a list or ranking anything from films and directors to athletes, musicians, etc. Unfortunately its seems like more and more people are having difficulty doing this resulting in various discussions becoming increasingly convoluted.
As I said earlier, I really do appreciate this site for giving me a rare escape to somewhere to debate and appreciate film.
@James Trapp- @KidCharlemagne thank you for the kind words about the site/list. @James Trapp thanks for sharing your thoughts here.
I certainly do get things wrong- but I take pride in trying to keep the focus to what is actually up there on the screen.
Great comment. I appreciate how Drake and viewers of this site focus what’s on the screen to determine how good a film is.
“Let’s just say I have a strong suspicion as to why Chinatown didn’t make the top 100 despite not only its greatness but also its popularity.“
Because of Polanski’s effed up personal life or are you thinking that maybe the extreme degradation that (really all) the female characters in that movie receive had something to do with it?
@Matthew – I was referencing Polanski’s crimes but even so I actually am a little suprised it did not make the list the more I think about it because while Polanski gets a lot of the credit for the films critical success so does Jack, Faye Dunaway, and certainly Robert Towne. In fact it probably gets more credit as a collaborative effort than some other all time great films so on 2nd thought I guess am a little surprised it did not make the list.
The sight and sound poll kind of ruined by day to be honest. But to be fair, I have not seen Jeanna Dielman yet. Has anyone on this site seen the supposed greatest movie of all time? Is it a MP?
@Saturn- Thank you for visiting the site. I saw it 10 or 12 years ago.
In a wake of S&S disaster, I have a question for you guys here – who are the critics, commentators, voices you respect in the world of cinema nowadays? When you want an opinion on a movie, who are the people you go to and respect their opinion?
@Dzoni- I often seek out the reviews from Justin Chang, Jeffrey Anderson and David Sims
@Dzoni – Deep Focus Reviews, great site especially for the all timers but they do reviews for recent films as well. They refer to the all time greats as THE DEFINITIVES and really for these ones they are more film essays than they are than standard reviews which is great as they are far more indepth.
Learning About Movies is a great YouTube channel hosted by Dr. Josh Matthews. He covers a huge range of films and I generally agree with him although he has some occationally bizarre takes. Although even when I disagree with him I find his arguments interesting.
Timeout.com make a lot of lists like Top 100 Hong Kong movies, 100 French movies, etc.
Peter Travers of Rolling Stone
Love the page for this year. Thought it might be time to move forward from the S&S disappointment in the comments here. (I found that quite sad, myself—but we do still have the Archives, after all!)
So with the caveat that my knowledge of cinema still has a ton of large and notable gaps… if I to pick a single best year, it’s 1975 and it’s not even close.
Mirror, Barry Lyndon, and Picnic at Hanging Rock *all* have a place in my current personal top 10 (Mirror at #1). I find it almost ridiculous that all three came out the same year. I realize I rate Picnic much higher than most would, but even if calling 1975 the “best year” is somewhat controversial, just those three films together surely amount to a very strong case for 1975 as cinema’s most *beautiful* year.
(Of course there’s also The Passenger, Jaws, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest—all easily top 100 in my book.)
I’m especially curious what others think about my ‘most beautiful year’ claim. Do any other years have as strong a claim to being #1 purely in terms of concentration of cinematic beauty?
@Logan 5 – most beautiful year I think is 1979. Stalker and Apocalypse Now at the top (no explanation needed, these are my two favourite films as well), Herzog’s Nosferatu (I was just discussing this here on the site as one of the 70s most beautiful films), Polanski’s Tess is his most visually stunning film, Allen’s Manhatten with Gordon Willis, The Black Stallion has the best magic hour work of the 70s outside of Malick and Peckinpah and finally there’s also Alien which reaches those levels with the self-destruct sequence.
@Logan 5- Thank you for sharing this. My go to answer for the best year is typically 1960- but will have to give this “most beautiful year” idea some more thought.
@Logan5 – I love Picnic at Hanging Rock, to me it’s a MP. I made a post for it on this page above in November 2021.
I don’t have 1975 as The Best Year but it’s certainly near the top as I have Barry Lyndon just outside the top 10 all time. I have Jaws, Picnic at Hanging Rock, Dog Day Afternoon, and One Flew… as MP
I have only seen Mirror and Nashville once each but remember both impressed me greatly
I’ll put you on the spot with a tough one Drake: if Nicholson didn’t have the double mention with The Passenger, and it was just his performance in Cuckoos Nest up against Pacino’s in Dog Day, who would take the crown for 1975?
This question is of course open to the members of this site too, would love to see what they have to say
@Matthew Haha- I can’t do it. I have seen both films a half dozen films. Both actors are just so good- tour de force performances in films that are sitting right next to each other on the top 10 list.
Fair enough. I don’t think I can come up with a matchup I think is more 50/50 if I tried (which I’ve sat here and tried to… I’ve been unsuccessful)
@Matthew – 1990 is a tough one with Goodfellas: Ray Liotta vs Joe Pesci
Ray Liotta is the main character and in pretty much every scene after the opening 15 min when Henry Hill is still a teenager and even as a teenager Ray Liotta is still the one narrating. Liotta is fantastic the entire film and is convincing through it all from a young hotshot family man to a more vulnerable character as the film progresses to his rock bottom as a drug addict
Joe Pesci as Tommy has the films best scenes and most frightening scenes; the infamous “How am I funny?” scene, the confrontation and eventual murder of Billy Batts, eating sausage and peppers and his Ma’s house, the card game where he shoots and later kills Spider, amongst other great moments. Pesci’s Tommy is a loose cannon capable of pretty much anything. He is not in as much of the film as Liotta but he certainly has plenty of screentime. He pretty much dominates every scene he’s in.
If forced to pick I would lean ever so slightly toward Pesci but ask me again tomorrow and who knows
Al Pacino.
The trio in the Favorite are equally strong. Pitt and Affleck in Jesse James is another one.
Hoffman (The Graduate) and Newman (Cool hand luke) comes to mind.
2000: Bjork, Burstyn, Maggie Cheung
Marcello and Belmondo (La Dolce Vita, Breathless)
The rest of the sight and sound list dropped:
https://boxd.it/jlyNq
https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time
@Harry- Thanks for sharing Harry. Anything stick out to you?
@Drake
– one film from the 2020s Petite Mama, haven’t seen it yet but surely receny bias
– happy to see a lot of films in my top 50 have a spot on there from 100-250
– Twin Peaks: The Return is nice to see there but its not the fifth best film of the 2010s
– of the films that were in the 100-250 lists in the 2012 list, I’m saddest to see Performance, Thin Red LIne, Turin Horse, Breaking The Waves, Solaris, Gone with The Wind and Viridiana go
@Harry- Thanks for sharing. Yikes, I was going to pore over the list and I still will I’m sure- frustrating- part of me thinks my energy would be better spent elsewhere.
Well, TSPDT has updated its list and, as we expected, we had A LOT of movement. The main headline is, of course, Jeanne Dielman making it into the top 15 of all time, which is huge, but Portrait of a lady on fire blasts into the top 1000 and settles at #187, which is even huger. I could foresee Dielman’s jump, but I didn’t see Sciamma coming.
There are a few changes I like quite a bit though: Persona keeps its steady climb towards the top 10 (it’s at #16 now, its highest rank ever as far as I know), as does In the mood for love (jumping over 30 spots to break into the top 20 for the first time). I have to admit that seeing Moonlight, which is probably my favourite film of the past 15 years, nearing the top 200 with a lot of room to grow makes me extremely happy. And I’m not gonna lie, watching Avatar drop out of the top 1000 also makes me smile.
@David O.- Yep, this was discussed quite a bit when the Sight and Sound list updated for 2022- but many critics seem to be stuck on the content side of the form vs. content side of the artistic merit discussion. I mention this again on the 2022 page- but del Toro does a beautiful job explaining the difference here https://www.indiewire.com/2022/11/guillermo-del-toro-defends-bardo-1234784634/
Well, of course he’s gonna defend Iñárritu. He’s his pal. And he’s applying painting logic to cinema when they are very different forms of artistic expression. Don’t give me wrong, I love Bardo, and there’s definitely some truth to what del Toro’s saying, but I don’t think his approach is bulletproof either.
@David O. that’s on the surface, he’s talking about an approach to art – his comments certainty check out
@DavidO. –
There Will Be Blood at # 167 is hilarious, the idea that there are 166 films superior is laughable
I like seeing:
Chungking Express moving up from # 197 to # 159
Parasite moving to # 248 and Memories of Murder moving up over 100 spots
Mulholland Drive is now # 33 after completing my Lynch Study recently I was mesmerized by this film
Barry Lyndon at # 45 and is now ranked as Kubrick’s 2nd best to only 2001 A Space Odyssey which is what I have as well
Mirror is great but overrated at # 23
The New World (2005) fell by over 100 spots which is disappointing as I was expecting it to be moving that number of spots in the opposite direction
The Master (2012) fell over 100 spots, it should have moved 100 spots at least in the opposite direction
Zodiac (2007) fell 100 spots and is now at # 643 which is a crime, there are 642 films superior to Zodiac? insane
Assassination of Jesse James is not in top 1000 which is absurd
Mulholland Drive is a film that would easily make it into my top 20 of all time, so yeah, on that one I agree with you 100%.
Not a reputable list IMO. You guys put too much worth in that list. Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles is ranked at #13, I haven’t seen it, just opened it and saw some parts of it and there’s minutes of the main character just sitting at a table literally doing nothing, with the camera not moving. Don’t think I’m missing out on much
Fincher’s highest film is #533, downgraded from #386. Nolan’s highest film #637, downgraded from 570. I do not see how there is 532 films better than Fight Club and 636 films better than The Dark Knight. The only DiCaprio film on there is Titanic as far as I can see, apparently all of the DiCaprio-Scorsese films are worse than every single DeNiro-Scorsese and also Temptation of Christ. Heat got slightly upgraded but it’s still way too low. There are not 263 films better than Heat.
Jeanne Dielman got where it is now because of its historical importance and influence. We shouldn’t be that shocked since it isn’t the first film to get considered one of the best ever for those reasons. It also didn’t hurt that it had the perfect narrative at the perfect time, which explains what happened with the Sight & Sound poll. If you have to name 10 films and you want to nudge a movie directed by a woman, Jeanne Dielman is a very comfortable and obvious choice, which is why it (together with films like Beau travail or Portrait of a lady on fire, just to name a few) amassed so many votes. And to be clear, I’m not a fan of Jeanne Dielman at all. I respect its thesis and its intention but I can’t say I enjoy the result all that much. I’m just saying I understand why it happened, even though I completely disagree with that placement. And let’s be fair, the film was already in the top 100. It’s not like it came out of nowhere.
I’m not too upset about Nolan’s belittlement, to be honest, although I would place Memento, which is probably my favourite of his, way higher than it currently is. The placement of Fincher’s films does surprise me more. I guess he’s easy to take for granted at this point and he doesn’t own that undisputable masterpiece that some of his contemporaries do have. He doesn’t have a Pulp fiction or a There will be blood. Personally, I would easily put The social network at that level, but not many people would.
As far as DiCaprio-Scorsese team-ups go, that doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. The departed has always been baked into the comparison with Infernal affairs and The aviator and Gangs of New York are usually considered mid-tier Scorsese, a sentiment I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with. Maybe The wolf of Wall Street can get up there with more time, but I don’t know, it’s already been ten years and I think if it were meant to get more clout, it would’ve happened by this point.
Well then the list isn’t objective at all if films are getting higher rated for political reasons. Women are not great directors. I don’t see how a film that has nothing happening for most of the 3 hour+ runtime is a perfect narrative, more like the opposite. I would personally say American Psycho is the best film directed by a woman, that isn’t so impressive, it’s not a top 100 film, but it is very easily in the top 1000 which it isn’t on that list.
They are clearly going by affirmative action, not objective ratings, so that list should be disregarded
Fincher does have a There Will Be Blood and Pulp Fiction – it is Fight Club. Seven is his Boogie Nights and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. And yeah I agree, Memento at #829 is crazy, it’s one of the best films in the 2000’s decade. It is not better than Dark Knight though, watch them back to back and you’ll see his film making is better in TDK.
The Departed is the best DiCaprio-Scorsese and there’s no way EVERY single De Niro-Scorsese + Last Temptation of Christ is better than it. Departed is top tier Scorsese. Aviator and Shutter Island is also near the top. Gangs of NY and Wolf of Wall Street are at the bottom of the Scorsese-Dicaprio collab, and Wolf of Wall Street is very overrated by the mainstream. Although, it is Scorsese, and low tier Scorsese is still very good, I would say they are both HR.
As someone who checks this site frequently in the pursuit of interesting discussion about my favourite artform, “women are not great directors” is really something I did not expect to see. There is absolutely nothing inherently true about women which would make them worse at directing a film, the biggest hurdle was largely that fewer opportunities were available. Obviously the push for reshaping the film canon to include more female and minority filmmakers greatly helped Jeanne Dielman’s meteoric rise, but it’s not a completely random coincidence that people picked that specific film to rally behind (it has been a highly respected film for decades). I’d argue that a film that respected and that influential is absolutely worth watching at least once, regardless of whether or not it was directed by a woman. It probably won’t be your favourite, you might not like it, but I’d say it’ll be at the very least worthwhile to watch it in full and to think about its importance to cinema.
Films have been rated highly or lowly for political reasons since criticism has existed. Lots of other reasons exist and affect evaluation as well. As new generations of critics pop up, the movies they grew up with and have fond memories of are likely to rise. Furthermore, films being readily available and popular (and having been this for many decades) helps their standing on TSPDT too. There are a million little tiny factors that sway people and that’s why I don’t pay super close attention to the minute differences in placements on the list. I follow the lists on this site far more since I can at least expect a bit more consistency, even though I don’t necessarily always agree 100% (great lists Drake! keep up the good work)
Also final point I think on “perfect narrative” David O. meant that it is viewed as the best movie directed by a woman and this is definitely a time where the pendulum is swinging in that direction. Definitely is not a film with “perfect” storytelling in any way shape or form.
I don’t really see an argument coming from you about how women are great directors according to you. Which ones in particular do you think are great? I’ve seen lots from the acclaimed ones like Bigelow, S. Coppola, and Campion and wasn’t too impressed. I would very easily put 50 male directors above those 3 who are considered 3 of the very best female directors and their films are nothing special to me. None of them come close at all to the top-tier directors.
@ga and @dylan – Seems pretty obvious that this from @ga “There is absolutely nothing inherently true about women which would make them worse at directing a film, the biggest hurdle was largely that fewer opportunities were available” is true. End of debate.
Now I will say that anyone taking the sex (or race, or religion) of the director into account when creating their list, in general, is not something I can endorse either way. If there is a sexist male critic keeping females off his list because they were directed by a female, shame on them and get those critics out of here. Likewise, if someone is going out of their way to put a female director on their list simply to put a female director on their list- well, I don’t have interest in such a list either.
@drake “Likewise, if someone is going out of their way to put a female director on their list simply to put a female director on their list- well, I don’t have interest in such a list either.”
That is exactly what looks to be going on and what I have a problem with. I don’t see how this is anything other than affirmative action
I’m sure you could find an argument from Drake at the very least on any of these women’s pages why they are worthy auteurs. It seems like you are going into their work with an a priori assumption and a bias but I don’t want to assume too much (just judging from the general attitude in your comments).
I 100% endorse this comment. You’re correct, that’s exactly what I meant when I said that it had a perfect narrative. To be honest, I don’t think anyone can be 100% objective when discussing art (not even those who pride themselves on being objective), which is why perceptions can change so vastly over time depending on culture, society, knowledge, experience and artistic standards and trends. “Two plus two equals four” is an objective fact. It was true 2000 years ago and it will be true 2000 years from now. It is true here and it is true anywhere. That doesn’t happen with art and I don’t think it’s supposed to. But even if there were a way to assess art in a fully objective way, that’s not something I’m interested in, to be honest. I believe in (and I enjoy) educated argumentation, but I stopped pretending to be objective a long time ago. I know this is something a lot of people on this website will disagree with, and that’s perfectly fine. I still enjoy the discussions and the sheer love for movies that we all seem to have, which is why I’m coming back more and more often.
As for that “women aren’t great directors” statement, I don’t even know what to say. I really don’t. It sounds so prejudiced and so biased that I never thought I would read it on this site.
Where is Tommy(1975) from Ken Russell?
Tommy is missing in the archiveable films list here for 1975. I do know it is in the archives though. Because it is one of Nicholson’s archiveable films
@Malith- Yes, these pages are updated in batches, you can see the date by the URL – Tommy will show up when the 1975 page is updated. The 1975 page published on in 2021 – the Nicholson page in 2023 so Tommy was added inbetween
I just saw that sight and sound had a new poll. Jeanne dileman is the greatest film of all time according to critics.
Just curious what your thoughts are? Have you seen the list. What did u think of the other placements? Did you rewatch Jeanne dielmann and if so do you think it warrants such a high ranking now?
Did you see Jeanne Dielman (1975) again after writing this page? It is now rated at #12 all-time by the TSPDT Consensus. What a mammoth jump up from its previous ranking of #85 this deep into a film ranking.
@Anderson – I have seen Jeanne Dielman again- did a little Chantal Akerman study this summer and was able to watch five of her films including Jeanne Dielman
Were you impressed in your second viewing of Jeanne Dielman? What grade did you gave it?
@Anderson- How about you? What did you think? I’ll let others chime in here for now – hopefully have time for a longer post later on the film and Akerman in future updates to the site.
I didn’t see it. Was looking for your thoughts about this film before seeing it. It caught my eye when it topped the Sight and Sound Poll recently.
@Anderson- Everyone should see it – I’d encourage you to see it
@Drake – why should everyone see it? The quality or the importance?
@Harry – to have the knowledge of it for one – even before the latest Sight & Sound update – this was a top 100 TSPDT film. Can’t discuss it or have an opinion of it if you haven’t seen it.
What is the grade you have for Jeanne Dielmann?
@Anderson- Still wrestling with it a little- would love to get to it again before the top 500/1000 update if I can – not sure if there is not. Have you seen it? What were your thoughts?