|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 2, 2022 11:25:47 GMT -8
The BFI just released their latest decennial list of the 100 greatest films ever. It features their broadest consensus ever (over 1,600 critics submitted their picks), and as such the final list features some of their most unexpected and interesting entries ever. I've seen 37 of the films (just watched 400 Blows today), and will probably check out a few more before year's end. My main point of contention with the list would be the rules on runtime, which seem hazy at best. It includes Meshes of the Afternoon, which is under 15 minutes long, yet most of the other entries run over an hour. Apparently that was the only short film to garner broad consensus? And yeah, that #1 pick has sparked some discussion. (Haven't seen it myself; it's been on my radar for a while, but I haven't yet been able to find 3.5 hours to watch a woman peel potatoes.) |
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Dec 2, 2022 16:03:34 GMT -8
As I noted on Twitter, I believe I've seen 72 of the films on the list. A fair number of the other ones seem kind of like homework, but I still wouldn't be opposed to giving most of them a look were they more readily available to me in Blu-Ray/DVD/streaming form (I'm not into pirating/streaming movies illegally, and whatnot). Haven't seen their new #1 either, but it seems like it might be a more heavy-handed attempt (organized internally by a significant number of critics) to simply get a female-directed film in the top spot.
As for "short films", well, Buster Keaton's Sherlock, Jr. has always been walking that line, at 45 minutes in length.
|
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Dec 3, 2022 13:56:39 GMT -8
This thread threw me a bit, simply because it looked like something I'd construct, yet there I was for a moment thinking, "Hang on, I don't remember writing something about this".
Aggregated lists often yield some surprising results, because I don't think I've ever seen anyone cite Jeanne Dielman as their GOAT, but a collective favouritism can (and obviously has) pull a particular article into the top slot(s). Great film incidentally, and it's great to see Akerman lauded as one of the greatest auteurs in the process, especially as she weirdly isn't mentioned that often in the pantheon of slow cinema directors (Tarr, Diaz, Garrel, etc). Incidentally I saw her swansong at the cinema several years ago and I literally comprised 50% of the audience.
As for runtime, I often find listmakers rarely arrive at consensus on the inclusion/dismissal of shorts (La Jetée is on there too), though they're not typically covered with the same level of attention as feature filmmaking, like they're some kind of bastard son. The implication of all this is that only the same handful are therefore worth the reverence. Go figure.
Oh, I've seen all of these bar Daughters of the Dust, which can probably be quite easily rectified.
|
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Dec 3, 2022 13:58:37 GMT -8
The BFI just released their latest decennial list of the 100 greatest films ever. It features their broadest consensus ever (over 1,600 critics submitted their picks), and as such the final list features some of their most unexpected and interesting entries ever. I've seen 37 of the films (just watched 400 Blows today), and will probably check out a few more before year's end. My main point of contention with the list would be the rules on runtime, which seem hazy at best. It includes Meshes of the Afternoon, which is under 15 minutes long, yet most of the other entries run over an hour. Apparently that was the only short film to garner broad consensus? And yeah, that #1 pick has sparked some discussion. (Haven't seen it myself; it's been on my radar for a while, but I haven't yet been able to find 3.5 hours to watch a woman peel potatoes.) I think the list is pretty neat, really. They've got a good variety on there, and their more recent picks are pretty good. I don't know if I'd quite put Portrait of a Lady on Fire or Parasite in a top 100 list--so much I haven't seen--but they are some of the most deserving of such a placement for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 4, 2022 7:06:00 GMT -8
As for "short films", well, Buster Keaton's Sherlock, Jr. has always been walking that line, at 45 minutes in length. Much respect to Sherlock Jr. (I watched it a few months ago, and it is excellent), but I admit being a bit baffled that it's broadly viewed as a feature film, appearing in the Top 250 on both IMDb and Letterboxd*. Certainly it's culturally important and influential, but it still seems a bit short to be considered "feature length." (I know the Oscars have a cutoff rule at 40 minutes to be classed as a short film, but don't know of any official classifications beyond that.) Then again, it doesn't sound like the BFI had specific restrictions put in place as to what would be classified as a film or not; they left it to the discretion of the voters. This thread threw me a bit, simply because it looked like something I'd construct, yet there I was for a moment thinking, "Hang on, I don't remember writing something about this". While creating the original post, I couldn't help thinking "This is a Guttersnipe thread." I suppose that means you get partial credit for it. I think the list is pretty neat, really. They've got a good variety on there, and their more recent picks are pretty good. I don't know if I'd quite put Portrait of a Lady on Fire or Parasite in a top 100 list--so much I haven't seen--but they are some of the most deserving of such a placement for sure. I don't mind having a few contemporary picks getting highlighted, though Portrait of a Lady on Fire at #30 seems a bit like recency bias (compounded by a general push for more inclusionary films) shining through. The BFI's 2012 list actually didn't have any contemporary (within the preceding decade) picks on it; the most recent film highlighted that year was Mulholland Drive. *The Letterboxd Top 250 has been great at helping me find classic films to watch as of late. I'm trying to hit parity with the list by the end of this year; currently I've seen 115, or 46%. (This is of course with the caveat that the entries shift and change every week, especially at Oscar season as new films pop on and drop off with regularity.) |
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Dec 5, 2022 14:31:54 GMT -8
Much respect to Sherlock Jr. (I watched it a few months ago, and it is excellent), but I admit being a bit baffled that it's broadly viewed as a feature film, appearing in the Top 250 on both IMDb and Letterboxd*. Certainly it's culturally important and influential, but it still seems a bit short to be considered "feature length." (I know the Oscars have a cutoff rule at 40 minutes to be classed as a short film, but don't know of any official classifications beyond that.) Then again, it doesn't sound like the BFI had specific restrictions put in place as to what would be classified as a film or not; they left it to the discretion of the voters. That's the thing; it sounds like if a poll doesn't stipulate certain rules, respondent critics will feel at liberty to include or disqualify short films (and documentaries) as they see fit, as well as whether or not things like Three Colours and The Lord of the Rings should be separated or applied wholesale (or even more tenuously, Twin Peaks and Dekalog). Time was, IMDb once specified that forty-six minutes was the cut-off point between a short and a feature and perhaps that became some sort of industry standard, but as Sherlock Jr. is such a perennial inclusion (and deservedly so), I gather that's since become somewhat irrelevant. It's like; when a music video runs for ten minutes and includes credits, does it suddenly become "a short film"? What's the ruling on that one? |
|
