Sight and Sound 2022 Goes Pretentious

Discussion of programming on TCM.
User avatar
Feinberg
Posts: 246
Joined: October 23rd, 2022, 9:25 am

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Goes Pretentious

Post by Feinberg »

A lot of these films are playing here at the BFI Southbank in London in January. Sight and Sound is a BFI magazine.
User avatar
HoldenIsHere
Posts: 641
Joined: October 22nd, 2022, 7:07 pm

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Goes Pretentious

Post by HoldenIsHere »

skimpole wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 11:42 am What about the Director's Poll?
Directors' Greatest Films of All Time (Top 20)

1. "2001: A Space Odyssey" (Stanley Kubrick 1968)
2. "Citizen Kane" (Orson Welles, 1941)
3. "The Godfather" (Francis Ford Coppola, 1972)
4 . "Tokyo Story" (Yasujiro Ozu, 1953)
4 (tie). "Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles" (Chantal Akerman, 1975)
6. "Vertigo" (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958)
6 (tie). "8½" (Federico Fellini, 1963)
8. "Mirror" (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1975)
9. "Persona" (Ingmar Bergman, 1966)
9 (tie). "In the Mood for Love" (Hong Kar Wai, 2000)
9 (tie). "Close Up" (Abbas Kiarostami, 1989)
12. "Taxi Driver"(Martin Scorsese, 1976)
12 (tie). "Barry Lyndon" (Stanley Kubrick, 1975)
14. "Beau travail" (Claire Denis, 1998)
14 (tie). "Seven Samurai" (Akira Kurosawa, 1954)
14 (tie). "A bout de souffle (Breathless)" (Jean-Luc Godard, 1960)
14 (tie). "Stalker" (Andrei Tarkosvsky, 1979)
18. "Apocalypse Now" (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979)
19. "A Woman Under the Influence" (John Cassavetes, 1974)
20. "Rashomon" (Akira Kurosawa, 1950).

Here's the link to the complete directors' list from the BFI website:

https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/ ... s-all-time

I tend to take more stock in the directors' list than the critics' list.

The directors' list included a number of movies that didn't make the critics'' list:
"Grand Illusion"
"The Magnificent Ambersons"
"Touch of Evil"
"Lawrence of Arabia"
"Chinatown"
"The Godfather Part II"
"Raging Bull"
"Dr. Strangelove"
"Eraserhead"
"Jaws"
User avatar
LostHorizons
Posts: 517
Joined: October 22nd, 2022, 4:37 pm

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Goes Pretentious

Post by LostHorizons »

Jeanne Dielman was not chosen for “pretentious” reasons or for obscurity but merely for its feminist theme. It fits perfectly into the current zeitgeist the same way Citizen Kane did during the initial baby boom era where the “self-made man” theme was the cornerstone of the times. Jeanne Dielman is the perfect fit for 2022 because of how boring and heavy handed it is despite not much of anything even happening on screen. If there was a film for the mediocre Trump/ Covid era it would be this one.
umop apisdn
Posts: 58
Joined: November 17th, 2022, 8:52 am

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Goes Pretentious

Post by umop apisdn »

LostHorizons wrote: December 4th, 2022, 10:49 pm Jeanne Dielman is the perfect fit for 2022 because of how boring and heavy handed it is despite not much of anything even happening on screen.
Oddly enough, I found Sátántangó more engaging when I watched it earlier this year. I did break it up over 3 days, but watching it was not as much as a chore :P as viewing Jeanne Dielman. I had the urge to fast forward during Dielman, but managed to resist my impulse to cheat.

I really enjoy the old multi-part silent films, so I don't exactly dislike long films. I watched Die Nibelungen and Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler as part of my Fritz Lang project a few years ago. I was afraid that I wouldn't be able to appreciate those films because they were long silent films, but I was pleasantly surprised. I watched Les Vampires earlier this year and was thoroughly mesmerized.

I suppose the difference is that these films had more complex plots and that made them more engaging for me.
User avatar
LawrenceA
Posts: 937
Joined: October 22nd, 2022, 1:04 pm

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Goes Pretentious

Post by LawrenceA »

umop apisdn wrote: December 5th, 2022, 9:01 pm
LostHorizons wrote: December 4th, 2022, 10:49 pm Jeanne Dielman is the perfect fit for 2022 because of how boring and heavy handed it is despite not much of anything even happening on screen.
Oddly enough, I found Sátántangó more engaging when I watched it earlier this year. I did break it up over 3 days, but watching it was not as much as a chore :P as viewing Jeanne Dielman. I had the urge to fast forward during Dielman, but managed to resist my impulse to cheat.

I really enjoy the old multi-part silent films, so I don't exactly dislike long films. I watched Die Nibelungen and Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler as part of my Fritz Lang project a few years ago. I was afraid that I wouldn't be able to appreciate those films because they were long silent films, but I was pleasantly surprised. I watched Les Vampires earlier this year and was thoroughly mesmerized.

I suppose the difference is that these films had more complex plots and that made them more engaging for me.
Your last part is it exactly. It's not that I don't like long movies. In fact. I have the Lang films, as well as Les Vampires, and the original Fantomas, on Blu-ray. But they don't seem as long because there's a lot more going on in them.

I'll probably finally get around to Satantango next year, but it still seems like the cinema equivalent of taking foul-tasting medicine. Hopefully my reticence will prove unfounded.
Watching until the end.
User avatar
LostHorizons
Posts: 517
Joined: October 22nd, 2022, 4:37 pm

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Goes Pretentious

Post by LostHorizons »

umop apisdn wrote: December 5th, 2022, 9:01 pm
LostHorizons wrote: December 4th, 2022, 10:49 pm Jeanne Dielman is the perfect fit for 2022 because of how boring and heavy handed it is despite not much of anything even happening on screen.
Oddly enough, I found Sátántangó more engaging when I watched it earlier this year. I did break it up over 3 days, but watching it was not as much as a chore :P as viewing Jeanne Dielman. I had the urge to fast forward during Dielman, but managed to resist my impulse to cheat.

I really enjoy the old multi-part silent films, so I don't exactly dislike long films. I watched Die Nibelungen and Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler as part of my Fritz Lang project a few years ago. I was afraid that I wouldn't be able to appreciate those films because they were long silent films, but I was pleasantly surprised. I watched Les Vampires earlier this year and was thoroughly mesmerized.

I suppose the difference is that these films had more complex plots and that made them more engaging for me.
I’ve never seen vampires but loved the Maggie Cheung movie about a fictional remake of it.
User avatar
LostHorizons
Posts: 517
Joined: October 22nd, 2022, 4:37 pm

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Goes Pretentious

Post by LostHorizons »

skimpole wrote: December 6th, 2022, 3:29 am
LostHorizons wrote: December 4th, 2022, 10:49 pm Jeanne Dielman was not chosen for “pretentious” reasons or for obscurity but merely for its feminist theme. It fits perfectly into the current zeitgeist the same way Citizen Kane did during the initial baby boom era where the “self-made man” theme was the cornerstone of the times. Jeanne Dielman is the perfect fit for 2022 because of how boring and heavy handed it is despite not much of anything even happening on screen. If there was a film for the mediocre Trump/ Covid era it would be this one.
Leaving aside the fact that Citizen Kane first topped the Sight and Sound poll in 1962, not "the initial baby boom" era of 1952, the "self-made man" theme goes back to the Age of Revolution in the 18th century, and therefore is a rather fuzzy theme. And Citizen Kane is admired because it combines cinematic craft with both narrative and thematic complexity with few if any contemporary rivals. If its reputation was simply a matter of fitting into the zeitgeist, Hollywood would have given Orson Welles more money. As for Jeanne Dielman, it clearly had an important reputation for some time, appearing in the top 200 movies of theyshootpictures.com in the mid-zeroes despite the fact that at the time it was not available on either VHS or DVD. (I had to book an appointment with the New York Public Library to see it on film in 2007.) And it clearly fits into a long cinematic tradition of social realism, carefully restrained performance and filming in real time. At the very least, Delphine Seyrig's performance is manifestly superior than the late Louise Fletcher's in One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest.
No, you misunderstand. I am saying Jeanne Dielman was likely chosen for political and social reasons and that it unintentionally says a lot about our times. The film is representative of modern years the way Citizen Kane is representative of the years following its creation and the economic boom years of when it was first brought to acclaim by Sight and Sound. This is not something intentional but just an interesting coincicence.
User avatar
Feinberg
Posts: 246
Joined: October 23rd, 2022, 9:25 am

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Goes Pretentious

Post by Feinberg »

LostHorizons wrote: December 6th, 2022, 7:29 pm
skimpole wrote: December 6th, 2022, 3:29 am
LostHorizons wrote: December 4th, 2022, 10:49 pm Jeanne Dielman was not chosen for “pretentious” reasons or for obscurity but merely for its feminist theme. It fits perfectly into the current zeitgeist the same way Citizen Kane did during the initial baby boom era where the “self-made man” theme was the cornerstone of the times. Jeanne Dielman is the perfect fit for 2022 because of how boring and heavy handed it is despite not much of anything even happening on screen. If there was a film for the mediocre Trump/ Covid era it would be this one.
Leaving aside the fact that Citizen Kane first topped the Sight and Sound poll in 1962, not "the initial baby boom" era of 1952, the "self-made man" theme goes back to the Age of Revolution in the 18th century, and therefore is a rather fuzzy theme. And Citizen Kane is admired because it combines cinematic craft with both narrative and thematic complexity with few if any contemporary rivals. If its reputation was simply a matter of fitting into the zeitgeist, Hollywood would have given Orson Welles more money. As for Jeanne Dielman, it clearly had an important reputation for some time, appearing in the top 200 movies of theyshootpictures.com in the mid-zeroes despite the fact that at the time it was not available on either VHS or DVD. (I had to book an appointment with the New York Public Library to see it on film in 2007.) And it clearly fits into a long cinematic tradition of social realism, carefully restrained performance and filming in real time. At the very least, Delphine Seyrig's performance is manifestly superior than the late Louise Fletcher's in One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest.
No, you misunderstand. I am saying Jeanne Dielman was likely chosen for political and social reasons and that it unintentionally says a lot about our times. The film is representative of modern years the way Citizen Kane is representative of the years following its creation and the economic boom years of when it was first brought to acclaim by Sight and Sound. This is not something intentional but just an interesting coincicence.
Are not the people who vote for this film critics? My point is if this is the case I'm not sure if you can then make the case that it fits with the current zeitgeist unless of course you are specifically referring to the tastes of films critics which may be prone to favour more intellectual exercises in film expression.
umop apisdn
Posts: 58
Joined: November 17th, 2022, 8:52 am

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Goes Pretentious

Post by umop apisdn »

Feinberg wrote: December 7th, 2022, 3:38 am Are not the people who vote for this film critics? My point is if this is the case I'm not sure if you can then make the case that it fits with the current zeitgeist unless of course you are specifically referring to the tastes of films critics which may be prone to favour more intellectual exercises in film expression.
It's funny you mention this because I have long thought the Critics list has a tendency to focus on film theory, while the Director's list focuses on the artistry behind making movies. This is only a natural divide, because these types of lists are often compiled with a person's own experiences in mind.

I prefer the Director's list, and I usually use the various lists floating around to create my movie watch list.

I also believe that many of these films have been tremendously helped by availability on DVD, Blu-ray or even streaming. I've been able to watch so many foreign and classic films using a combination of TCM and films from Janus/Criterion. I've been through all 4 streaming services that carried Criterion Collection content. Naturally, I loved Filmstruck the best.
User avatar
Feinberg
Posts: 246
Joined: October 23rd, 2022, 9:25 am

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Goes Pretentious

Post by Feinberg »

umop apisdn wrote: December 7th, 2022, 8:11 pm
Feinberg wrote: December 7th, 2022, 3:38 am Are not the people who vote for this film critics? My point is if this is the case I'm not sure if you can then make the case that it fits with the current zeitgeist unless of course you are specifically referring to the tastes of films critics which may be prone to favour more intellectual exercises in film expression.
It's funny you mention this because I have long thought the Critics list has a tendency to focus on film theory, while the Director's list focuses on the artistry behind making movies. This is only a natural divide, because these types of lists are often compiled with a person's own experiences in mind.

I prefer the Director's list, and I usually use the various lists floating around to create my movie watch list.

I also believe that many of these films have been tremendously helped by availability on DVD, Blu-ray or even streaming. I've been able to watch so many foreign and classic films using a combination of TCM and films from Janus/Criterion. I've been through all 4 streaming services that carried Criterion Collection content. Naturally, I loved Filmstruck the best.
On the BFI Sight and Sound website they tout a more expansive net of participants in this year's poll. I often find that people who like to think of themselves as 'serious' critics of film, professional or not, go out of their way picking more contentious choices as a way of saying 'look at me and how smarter than the rest I am.'
User avatar
CinemaInternational
Posts: 810
Joined: October 23rd, 2022, 3:12 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Goes Pretentious

Post by CinemaInternational »

Feinberg wrote: December 9th, 2022, 6:31 am
umop apisdn wrote: December 7th, 2022, 8:11 pm
Feinberg wrote: December 7th, 2022, 3:38 am Are not the people who vote for this film critics? My point is if this is the case I'm not sure if you can then make the case that it fits with the current zeitgeist unless of course you are specifically referring to the tastes of films critics which may be prone to favour more intellectual exercises in film expression.
It's funny you mention this because I have long thought the Critics list has a tendency to focus on film theory, while the Director's list focuses on the artistry behind making movies. This is only a natural divide, because these types of lists are often compiled with a person's own experiences in mind.

I prefer the Director's list, and I usually use the various lists floating around to create my movie watch list.

I also believe that many of these films have been tremendously helped by availability on DVD, Blu-ray or even streaming. I've been able to watch so many foreign and classic films using a combination of TCM and films from Janus/Criterion. I've been through all 4 streaming services that carried Criterion Collection content. Naturally, I loved Filmstruck the best.
On the BFI Sight and Sound website they tout a more expansive net of participants in this year's poll. I often find that people who like to think of themselves as 'serious' critics of film, professional or not, go out of their way picking more contentious choices as a way of saying 'look at me and how smarter than the rest I am.'
Probably true. Vanity in film critics has been increasing for some time. There is an increasing hostility in the world of film criticism to what are perceived as mainstream films coupled with an increased touting of films that are more esoteric, just like Jeanne Dielman. Foreign films also tend to get a critical advantage over American and British titles. In some ways, the Criterion Collection has caused a skewed revisionism of film history, with films that get one of their coveted releases being taken far more seriously in upscale film circles than those that don't. (By contrast, past critics such as Sarris, Kael, and Ebert heaped much praise on films that would mortify some critics today, like Animal House [Ebert], the 1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers [Kael], and My Best Friend's Wedding [Sarris])

It is known that many of these new additions to the voting pool for this poll were younger critics and they were lobbying heavily for films like Dielman, as well as for more recent directors like Wong Kar-Wai and David Lynch, who of course had films crack the top 10 on the Critics list. It was also rumored that they put up a united front against films from directors like Welles, Ford, Bresson, etc, but we will not know for sure until the individual top ten lists of the critics are released.

And although it might make me sound like a total rube, when it comes to the topic of female directed films, I far preferred the eternally divisive Yentl, a major studio, Hollywood film through and through, to Jeanne Dielman.
User avatar
LostHorizons
Posts: 517
Joined: October 22nd, 2022, 4:37 pm

Re: Sight and Sound 2022 Goes Pretentious

Post by LostHorizons »

Feinberg wrote: December 7th, 2022, 3:38 am
LostHorizons wrote: December 6th, 2022, 7:29 pm
skimpole wrote: December 6th, 2022, 3:29 am

Leaving aside the fact that Citizen Kane first topped the Sight and Sound poll in 1962, not "the initial baby boom" era of 1952, the "self-made man" theme goes back to the Age of Revolution in the 18th century, and therefore is a rather fuzzy theme. And Citizen Kane is admired because it combines cinematic craft with both narrative and thematic complexity with few if any contemporary rivals. If its reputation was simply a matter of fitting into the zeitgeist, Hollywood would have given Orson Welles more money. As for Jeanne Dielman, it clearly had an important reputation for some time, appearing in the top 200 movies of theyshootpictures.com in the mid-zeroes despite the fact that at the time it was not available on either VHS or DVD. (I had to book an appointment with the New York Public Library to see it on film in 2007.) And it clearly fits into a long cinematic tradition of social realism, carefully restrained performance and filming in real time. At the very least, Delphine Seyrig's performance is manifestly superior than the late Louise Fletcher's in One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest.
No, you misunderstand. I am saying Jeanne Dielman was likely chosen for political and social reasons and that it unintentionally says a lot about our times. The film is representative of modern years the way Citizen Kane is representative of the years following its creation and the economic boom years of when it was first brought to acclaim by Sight and Sound. This is not something intentional but just an interesting coincicence.
Are not the people who vote for this film critics? My point is if this is the case I'm not sure if you can then make the case that it fits with the current zeitgeist unless of course you are specifically referring to the tastes of films critics which may be prone to favour more intellectual exercises in film expression.
Critics can be very tuned in to the world around them. I hope Jeanne Dielman is a passing fad. What I mean is I hope by the time of the next list it has passed out of public consciousness the same way the modern social justice politics hopefully will be. I can’t see anyone enjoying Jeanne Dielman specifically for cinematic or artistic merits as it is seriously lacking in those areas.
Post Reply