Sergio Leone Web Board
Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: dave jenkins on December 01, 2022, 04:10:58 PM
-
Jeanne Dielman is the new #1? As titoli would say, Yeah, sure.
https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time
This list is a little better:
https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/directors-100-greatest-films-all-time
-
I can make up a list too, so can others.....
-
I think you're missing the point. These lists are supposed to be the result of consensus. Jeanne Dielman can't possibly be number 1 without collusion.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/iFOgoEL.png)
-
Never heard of it, lol.
-
Never heard of it, lol.
No reason you should, unless you enjoy the cinematic equivalent of watching paint dry.
-
I never watched it either, I never tried to. It was also never a film I have read much about. Now I'm curious of course, but indeed it smells like a "PC-choice".
I always thought that these kind of lists, and I like these kind of lists, are always way to conservative by preferring much too much older films over more recent films, so that the new list is pleasing in that respect, but also puzzling for what was chosen. So I have no idea why Get Out (fine entertainment) or Portrait of a Young Lady in Flames (far less interesting than expected) are in the top 100, except for representing a PC look on art.
And normally I don't trust all this talk about how much discussions are changed by PC.
But then, such lists represent a consensus, as long as they are honest.
-
I always liked the fact that 4 westerns were in the top 100, but it seems logically that this now has changed, with The Searchers and OuTW losing ground and The Wild Bunch and Rio Bravo now out of the top 100.
Actually I expected OuTW to climb, but it didn't ...
-
This list continues the trend of Raging Bull?s popularity recessing. It used to be in everybody and their mother?s top 10 a decade ago. It?s become much rarer to find it now.
-
For those who are curious, here is my write-up from 2014:
Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975) - A woman (Delphine Seyrig) is standing in her kitchen. She lights a burner and places a pot on the element. Her doorbell rings. She takes off her smock and leaves the frame. In the foyer she greets her guest, takes his overcoat and scarf, hangs them up out of frame. She accompanies the man into a room at the end of the hall and closes the door. A jump cut shows the light has changed and that time has passed. The woman and man emerge from the room, return to the foyer. The woman (Delphine Seyrig) helps the man put on his coat and scarf. She turns on a light. The man gives the woman some money, mentions next week, departs. The woman turns off the light. She goes into the dining room and, in a ceramic tureen in the center of the table, places the money. She returns to the kitchen, turns off the gas, and takes the pot that has been heating off the stove. She pours the contents into a strainer in another pot. She returns the strained contents (potatoes?) to the first pot. She pours off the liquid in the second pot into the sink. She goes into her bedroom and opens the window. There is a white towel on top of the bedspread. She takes it and exits the frame. She reappears in the bathroom, deposits the towel in the hamper. She returns to the bedroom. There is a cut and suddenly we are back in the bathroom, the woman is naked, in the tub, sitting, washing herself with a shower mitt. She gets the back of her neck, scrubs her ears. We see the woman's tits (Delphine Seyrig's tits), and they are nice tits, but her underarm hair is coyly withheld from view. Another cut and she is dressing. Another cut and she is scrubbing the bathtub. Then she is back in the kitchen, taking down a folded, vinyl tablecloth, and two cloth napkins in napkin rings. She opens a drawer and takes out utensils. There is a noise at the front door. The woman's son (Some Guy) has returned from school (high school? university?). The woman (Delphine Seyrig) goes into the foyer, turns on the light, and kisses the boy on each cheek. The boy takes his school bag and goes into the dining room, past the dinner table, into the livingroom area, turns on the light, sits and starts reading. The woman takes the folded table cloth into the dining room and places it on one half of the table. She sets two places for dinner. The woman (Delphine Seyrig) returns to the kitchen and ladles soup into two bowls. She brings the bowls into the dining room and places one at her son's place at the head of the table and the other at the place beside him where she intends to sit. The boy comes and sits at his place and continues to read his book. The woman tells him not to eat at the table. Obligingly, the boy turns his book over. The woman places 18-and-a-half spoonfuls of soup into her mouth (I counted). The soup finished, the woman takes the empty bowls back into the kitchen. On a plate she places 5 potatoes, then spoons on some meat in what appears to be a demi-glace sauce. On another plate she places two potatoes and meat and sauce. She returns to the dining room and gives her son the plate with five potatoes. After dinner the woman takes the plates away. As she leaves she mentions that she has received a letter from her sister in Canada. She goes to her room and returns with her purse. From her purse she produces the letter, and reads it aloud. It is a compendium of banal observations. Afterwards she returns the letter to her bag, withdraws some chocolate, gives it to the boy. She begins clearing the table, but when she reaches for her son's glass he grabs it and guzzles the liquid. He leaves frame but quickly returns with his school bag and begins piling the contents on the table. Too soon, it seems: his mother enters with a damp cloth wanting to wipe down the tablecloth. He lifts everything up as she wipes. The boy reads a passage from his schoolwork to his mother. The woman goes into the living room and turns on the radio. The son also goes into the living area. The woman collects her knitting and returns to the table. While she knits she listens to a performance of Fur Elise. Apparently she is knitting a sweater for her son. At one point she calls him over for a fitting. She puts her knitting away, then she and her son prepare to depart. They leave their apartment and walk down the hall to the lift. They descend in the lift. They walk outside their building and go out into the dark street. There is an ellipsis. The pair return, enter the building, ascend the lift, go into the apartment. In the living room mother and son rearrange furniture and configure the hide-a-bed: this is where the son sleeps. The son reads in bed. The woman sits at her bureau, in nighty and housecoat, and brushes her hair thirty-nine times (I counted). She goes into the living room to kiss her son goodnight. She speaks briefly about the boy's dead father. When the son agrees it is time for lights out the woman (Delphine Seyrig) hits the switch. She goes into her bedroom and retires for the night. A title comes up stating that this is the end of the first day. The film has nearly three more hours to go.
I actually kind of like the film, but I never want to watch it again, and I can think of 1000 other ones of greater merit.
-
Wokeamania is runnin' wild brother!!!!
I always hated these stuffy academic lists, but they at least had credibility. Now, that is gone. Schrader and Jenkins are right that there's no feasible way that movie could have been number one without collusion.
While part of me is sad that mainstream film culture is all but dead, the one good thing to come out of that is traditional film criticism has never had less relevance. And that's a great thing because no longer do we (generally) have insightful film lovers as critics, we have weirdos with agendas.
-
The one good thing about this year's lists is that the magazine also publishes the individual lists of its high profile contributors. I don't have a copy of the magazine, but over at criterionforum some posters do, and they're sharing photos of some of the pages. Here's one that might be of interest to readers here:
(https://i.imgur.com/NVF02Zl.jpg)
-
A few things to note though:
1- Those lists are just lists, they held no power. So they're mostly useful as (1) conversation starters and (2) symptoms of the state of the discourse over cinephilia.
2- There are about 7,8 billion different understandings of the phrase "greatest films of all time". One per person.
3- When you're doing such a list, you're always involving some level of "politics". Even when you're only thinking about cinema, you're always ending up being kind of combative and defending a certain idea of cinema. Bong Joon Ho puts Mad Max Fury Road in his top 10 and I don't believe he really thinks it's one of the 10 best movies ever. I think Mad Max Fury Road is a relatively recent film that defends a certain idea of cinema and this is why he puts it in his top 10. It's a statement. A political one. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, I'm just saying, let's not fool ourselves and THINK that Vertigo and CK fighting for the first spot for decades wasn't the result of a political struggle.
4- The main difference between the current list and the previous ones is that they asked to much more people than they usually do. It ends up making a more controversial list than the usual one. Which is only a good thing and there is not a single bad thing to say about that.
5- The best thing to do in front of such a list is (1) make your own and (2) start working on the huge chunks of cinema history/geography you don't know shit about.
-
I liked the previous list more, there were more films in it which I love, while many of the newbies are films I consider not that great. Well I wanted more new films, but it seems I have other ideas which films of the last 20 years are the most fascinating. The director's list was for me always the more filmic one, and this year it seems to be that even more clearly.
Someone has some ideas where the more radical changes came from, and if he is right, it is bit sad, a win of content over style:
https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2022/12/sight-and-sound
But of course the S&S poll is not dead, it is still breathing ...
The ones I love the most are 2001, Otto e mezzo, C'era una volta il West, Madame de, Persona, Apocalypse Now and Mulholland Drive, the ones I like the least are M, Do the Right Thing, The Apartment, Rear Window, Angst essen Seele auf and yes, Portrait de la jeune fille en feu
-
Never heard of it, lol.
Nor have I.
The one good thing about this year's lists is that the magazine also publishes the individual lists of its high profile contributors. I don't have a copy of the magazine, but over at criterionforum some posters do, and they're sharing photos of some of the pages. Here's one that might be of interest to readers here:
Michael Man?s list reminds me just how good Pale Flower is.
-
No reason you should, unless you enjoy the cinematic equivalent of watching paint dry.
The write up on the S&S website is interesting:
It rigorously records her domestic routine in extended time and from a fixed camera position
Why would someone waste the cinematic medium by keeping the camera fixed the whole time? Might I also assume that there is no brilliant editing either?
-
To get a very special intensity?
Several great films do things like this.
-
Yeah, tons of terrific examples of camera not moving at all. In fiction as well as in documentary. The philosophy behind the fixed camera is staying close to the medium's origins: the cinematograph was supposed to record reality. I personally tend to be more partial to a more expressive kind of filmmaking but that does't mean I'm gonna close the door to all the geniuses that work in another direction.
-
To me, cinema without camera movement and editing (I?m adding that in) is just a stage play. Granted, one at a very specific angle as if all viewers are in the same seat with the same lighting effects as a controlled photograph.
So, go ahead and name a few ?great? examples. Maybe you can convince me otherwise. I might even have seen them ?
-
On top of my mind:
- The extended shot in the middle of Hunger (I haven't watched the following video but it seems to be talking about that shot and other static shots in McQueen's filmmography https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYY0tsv2ioY)
- Many shots in most of Frederick Wiseman's documentaries
- That one scene in Haneke's Cach? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aolQ1J4xAZ4
- That one scene in Ida https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7elB8NGZjg
- Most violent scenes in Une Vie Violente by Thierry De Peretti
- Anything Roy Andersson, which, unarguably, always has some kind of theater play feel BUT I would never go see anything like this on stage and I find it particularly powerful on screen. That one scene is a masterpiece, I could very well be sitting at the same place as the camera in a theater watchign it play live on stage and I would not have the same experience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX87rVZ0Vag
- Back to documentaries and the birth of cinema(tograph): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo_eZuOTBNc isn't this pure cinema? Where the artist is seemingly erased from the equation and where the camera is just capturing reality.
- There is a scene in Godard's Weekend (which isn't a good movie) where 2 people make a big political monologue each. The way it's shot is: the camera stays still, in close up, on the one who isn't talking. It lasts for a few minutes. What a terrific cinematic idea it is.
- A scene that doesn't exist: 1917 wasn't a great war movie. Now wouldn't you want to watch a WW1 movie shot in one extended shot where the camera stays still in a trench, and we see soldiers waiting for 90min before the assault, and the camera stays there until only a few of them come back from the assault? Wouldn't that be a better film?
(The fact that the extended static shots work so well with violence tells me a case could be made about how unethical/bullshit any other choice can be when what you're filming something that matters.)
Now I highly suggest you give a shot to Las hijas de Abril by Michel Franco (or anything by Franco from what I understand but that's the only one I have seen) and you will see a movie where:
- most of the scenes are told in a single extended shot
- most of those shots don't move (some do, and they're even better when they do, it opens up the shot, it densifies it, so I'm not arguing for "never move the camera"... but the best shots of the movie always start still and then move after at least a minute, and it's more of a pan that creates another shot, so it's more of 2 or 3 shots stiched together by clever mise en scene)
- about a quarter of the shots would deserve to be on a "best shot of the year/decade" list
- you can actually remember most of the shots the day after seeing the movie
By the way, I know where you're coming from and I'm 100% sure you're very wrong about the way you're rejecting the other school of filmmaking. It's one thing to show how camera moves are powerful, fascinating, a huge strength of that medium, it's another one to close one's mind/eyes to so many greatness, powerfulness and intelligence at the other end of the spectrum. Same thing about the editing: of course it's easy to show how amazing and pureley cinematic editing can be. Yet we all know that when we're watching a good extended shot (i'm talking about an extended shot where you can see the DoP masturbating), we're watching something that has to do with the essence of cinema. I'm just trying to make you open your second eye, not close your first.
-
Hold on. I?m not talking about individual scenes with a static camera. Nothing wrong with that at all. I?m talking about a static camera throughout. That is surely missing the point of the medium.
-
I?ll check out some of the examples you shared.
I think I need to watch Tokyo Story again. I watched it when I was young and didn?t appreciate it much, but maybe I?ll find more to appreciate in my dotage (ok so I?m not that old at all)
-
This list is an absolute joke. When all is said and done the killing of George Floyd will turn out to be one of the single most significant moments in the history of western civilization, as far as how much the world changed after that. So an asshole cop in Minneapolis wrongfully kills somebody and now we have a S&S list that is horseshit. Oh well, fuck lists. I still know what the greatest movies are, regardless of what a bunch of woke non-binary creeps want me to think. Fuck them. And I have the classics on BRD/DVD so they can never take them away from me :)
-
This list is an absolute joke. When all is said and done the killing of George Floyd will turn out to be one of the single most significant moments in the history of western civilization, as far as how much the world changed after that. So an asshole cop in Minneapolis wrongfully kills somebody and now we have a S&S list that is horseshit. Oh well, fuck lists. I still know what the greatest movies are, regardless of what a bunch of woke non-binary creeps want me to think. Fuck them. And I have the classics on BRD/DVD so they can never take them away from me :)
What will you do when they turn off your electricity?
-
What will you do when they turn off your electricity?
Elon Musk will invent a technology to make it work
-
This list is an absolute joke.
Which one? The directors' list is very much what you would expect. The critics list is VERY similar, you're just pissed off about the very first and the very last spots on that list. I haven't seen Jeanne Dielman, so I'm mostly pissed off about Portrait of a Lady on Fire being on the list (as #30, despite being both a mediocre movie and a mediocre feminist movie), pretty sure I can live with that.
-
Hold on. I?m not talking about individual scenes with a static camera. Nothing wrong with that at all. I?m talking about a static camera throughout. That is surely missing the point of the medium.
Ok, but still. I probably don't have the culture to find so many great examples, but as individual scenes work, I don't see how a more radical movie which only consists of such scenes couldn't be a masterpiece. Art is sometimes more defined by what you don't do rather than what you do.
I?ll check out some of the examples you shared.
I think I need to watch Tokyo Story again. I watched it when I was young and didn?t appreciate it much, but maybe I?ll find more to appreciate in my dotage (ok so I?m not that old at all)
I have to dive into Ozu one of these day. Really, if you can check out anything by Michel Franco I think it will open your mind a bit. Even if you end up disliking his movies (once again I've only seen one of them) but you'll see how great (and cinematic) cinema can be with mostly static shots. I can assure that you won't dislike the fact that the camera doesn't move.
-
Which one? The directors' list is very much what you would expect. The critics list is VERY similar, you're just pissed off about the very first and the very last spots on that list. I haven't seen Jeanne Dielman, so I'm mostly pissed off about Portrait of a Lady on Fire being on the list (as #30, despite being both a mediocre movie and a mediocre feminist movie), pretty sure I can live with that.
There are films on this list only because they are about racism or feminism. It?s about s woke agenda, not the best movies. Hence its meaningless
-
There are films on this list only because they are about racism or feminism. It?s about s woke agenda, not the best movies. Hence its meaningless
I understood that, but seriously, how many of them?
-
I understood that, but seriously, how many of them?
It doesn?t matter. When a few get on for that obvious reason, it automatically downgrades others and makes the list suspect.
One example: Rio Bravo is now off the list. Is it because John Wayne movie explicitly against High Noon is not acceptable for the BLM crowd?
-
I'm not sympathetic at all with people judging movies purely on moral grounds but my point is you're not wrong, you're overreacting. Most of the list is fine and very much consensual. For instance: you're pissed off with #1 and I am with #30, but do you have any issue whatsoever with #2 to #29?
-
I'm not sympathetic at all with people judging movies purely on moral grounds but my point is you're not wrong, you're overreacting. Most of the list is fine and very much consensual. For instance: you're pissed off with #1 and I am with #30, but do you have any issue whatsoever with #2 to #29?
If we know that people are voting based on political views and not based on the best movies, yes, the whole list is suspect. Even if the list is mostly comprised of great movies. Because it is certain that the rankings are affected by this. A great movie that is at e.g. number 2 or number 20 might have been at #1 or #10, or #3 or #30, if people had voted based on which movies are best. And it necessarily means that movies that deserve to be on the list are not, or are lower than they should be. As soon as I know that people are not entirely motivated by what movie is best, this list becomes bullshit.
-
If we know that people are voting based on political views and not based on the best movies, yes, the whole list is suspect. Even if the list is mostly comprised of great movies. Because it is certain that the rankings are affected by this. A great movie that is at e.g. number 2 or number 20 might have been at #1 or #10, or #3 or #30, if people had voted based on which movies are best. And it necessarily means that movies that deserve to be on the list are not, or are lower than they should be. As soon as I know that people are not entirely motivated by what movie is best, this list becomes bullshit.
"best" is such an imprecise notion everywhere but in art even more so that nobody has the same definition (and most people don't even try to define the notion before voting). So you're freaking out because for some people it means "politicaly right", but there are many other definitions that would make you freak out even more and that have been counted in the previous lists too. Think of it like a presidential election: people vote for weird reasons, they always did and always will. And nobody think an election or a movie list are gospell, we all know they are fundamentally impure, deeply flawed.
Here are a few weird reasons some film critics say a film is in their top 10 and have nothing to do with PC culture:
- Loved it as a kid, got me into cinema (eventhough i would never watch it nowadays)
- Everybody says it's great so I'll put it in the list to look like a serious film critic (that one, to me, is the biggest flaw of every movie list ever)
- I saw it last week so right now it's much higher in my ranking than it was 2 months ago and will be two months from now, I just don't know that yet
- I hate PC culture so I'll say Gone With The Wind is the best movie ever eventhough I have never seen it
- ...
I usually include influence of a movie in my ratings/ranking. Which makes a lot of people go crazy because this isn't what they call the "best movies". I think they are crazy. They think I'm crazy. Controling the polical correctness of a movie isn't different at all. The fact that CK and Vertigo ACTUALLY are some of the greatest movies ever, do you really think their ranking has only to do with their qualities? How many of the people who vote in these lists have seen Vertigo or Citizen Kane in the last 3 or even 5 years? Either the list always was bullshit or it isn't now. So yeah you're overreacting.
-
"best" is such an imprecise notion everywhere but in art even more so that nobody has the same definition (and most people don't even try to define the notion before voting). So you're freaking out because for some people it means "politicaly right", but there are many other definitions that would make you freak out even more and that have been counted in the previous lists too. Think of it like a presidential election: people vote for weird reasons, they always did and always will. And nobody think an election or a movie list are gospell, we all know they are fundamentally impure, deeply flawed.
Here are a few weird reasons some film critics say a film is in their top 10 and have nothing to do with PC culture:
- Loved it as a kid, got me into cinema (eventhough i would never watch it nowadays)
- Everybody says it's great so I'll put it in the list to look like a serious film critic (that one, to me, is the biggest flaw of every movie list ever)
- I saw it last week so right now it's much higher in my ranking than it was 2 months ago and will be two months from now, I just don't know that yet
- I hate PC culture so I'll say Gone With The Wind is the best movie ever eventhough I have never seen it
- ...
I usually include influence of a movie in my ratings/ranking. Which makes a lot of people go crazy because this isn't what they call the "best movies". I think they are crazy. They think I'm crazy. Controling the polical correctness of a movie isn't different at all. The fact that CK and Vertigo ACTUALLY are some of the greatest movies ever, do you really think their ranking has only to do with their qualities? How many of the people who vote in these lists have seen Vertigo or Citizen Kane in the last 3 or even 5 years? Either the list always was bullshit or it isn't now. So yeah you're overreacting.
this is an old debate we have had about what constitutes best movie. Roger Ebert said when someone asks him what is the best movie, he says CK, but when someone asks him which movie he enjoys the most, he says Casablanca. Fine. I know that not everyone has the same definition. Some people focus on artistic achievement, others focus purely on what they enjoy (I am in the latter camp). "Influential" is another criteria people use. Fine. There are a variety of legitimate definitions of "greatest."
But here is a definition that is completely illegitimate: George Floyd was unjustifiably killed, blacks are suffering from systemic racism, black lives matter, so I want to send a message to the world and rank race-conscious films as the greatest of all time. That is bullshit.
if the people ranking e.g., Killer of Sheep or Do the Right Thing as one of the top 10 greatest movies of all time because they truly feel that way, based on their enjoyment of it or artistic achievement, great. But if they are doing it because they want to send a message, that's bullshit.
I haven't bothered to review the 2012 or 2002 or 1992 lists now, but if these race-conscious movies were not ranked that high on those lists and just shot up now, it's obviously due to BLM and people trying to send a message.
-
For me actually my favourite films are also what I would call best films, cause in the end the criteria for "best" can only come from my way of thinking. But of course it is my subjective view, cause everything is subjective, and I accept that others have other ideas. But then we can get an interesting consensus if enough contribute.
Whatever, I would prefer it if they just asked for the favourite films, and not for the "greatest", and leaves it to everyone how to define what "greatest" means. So some will always have named films they don't really enjoy, and this year it is I assume pretty likely that some felt obliged to name films directed by women and by black people.
-
this is an old debate we have had about what constitutes best movie. Roger Ebert said when someone asks him what is the best movie, he says CK, but when someone asks him which movie he enjoys the most, he says Casablanca. Fine. I know that not everyone has the same definition. Some people focus on artistic achievement, others focus purely on what they enjoy (I am in the latter camp). "Influential" is another criteria people use. Fine. There are a variety of legitimate definitions of "greatest."
But here is a definition that is completely illegitimate: George Floyd was unjustifiably killed, blacks are suffering from systemic racism, black lives matter, so I want to send a message to the world and rank race-conscious films as the greatest of all time. That is bullshit.
if the people ranking e.g., Killer of Sheep or Do the Right Thing as one of the top 10 greatest movies of all time because they truly feel that way, based on their enjoyment of it or artistic achievement, great. But if they are doing it because they want to send a message, that's bullshit.
I haven't bothered to review the 2012 or 2002 or 1992 lists now, but if these race-conscious movies were not ranked that high on those lists and just shot up now, it's obviously due to BLM and people trying to send a message.
"Political consciousness" in a film is a criteria just like "influential" or "enjoyment". It doesn't have to be about sending a message. It sometimes is. I don't think "Do the right thing" is often used to send a message in 2022. Portrait of a Lady on Fire, maybe so...
-
Polls made by individual directors: https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2022/12/8ac360v6wlga1zf2dfozjfs5r7oihc
-
Now Variety has published their own list: https://variety.com/lists/best-movies-of-all-time/
-
Polls made by individual directors: https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2022/12/8ac360v6wlga1zf2dfozjfs5r7oihc
And the winner is . . .
Martin McDonagh
Days of Heaven
A Matter of Life and Death
Badlands
Taxi Driver
The Godfather
Seven Samurai
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
The Night of the Hunter
Citizen Kane
The Wild Bunch
-
Now Variety has published their own list: https://variety.com/lists/best-movies-of-all-time/
TITANIC is #45? Why not #1?
-
The Variety list is not surprisingly more leaning towards Hollywood related films.
With some pretty odd choices. Since when have Bridesmaids and My Best Friends Wedding a high reputation? And where's that Shawshank thing when you don't need it?
But there are also some choices close to my likings, which are not featured in the S&S top 100, like Natural Born Killers, Pulp Fiction, Le samourai, Notorious (Hitch's best) or an Almodovar film (but far away from his best ones).
2 westerns with Stagecoach at # 34 and The Wild Bunch at # 41, but no Sergio no Searchers no Rio Bravo
-
Lmao. It not a poll anymore.
-
I don't have watched this list and won't. But there's another list which is maybe even more ridiculous and that is much talked about these days:the best singers list by RS. Now, the fact that now you don't have to buy this shut but can check it online doesn't mean you have to take it seriously. People doing this shut are not qualified or are simply paid to make it. The one in RS has Sinatra (sr, not jr) at n. 19. So there are 18 singers better than OBE. Not one or two (which would be understandable). 18 singers better than Sinatra. But apparently americans like this kind of shut and take it seriously.
-
Only 18? That's ridiculous ... why not 118? Which would be understandable ...
... but this happens if you things can't buy.
-
... but this happens if you things can't buy.
Like clarity of expression, for example.
-
S&S has now expanded the critic's list to # 250:
https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time
The S&S western top 10:
1. The Searchers #15 (9/10)
2. OuTW # 95 (12/10)
3. Rio Bravo # 101 (9/10)
4. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance # 108 (6,5/10)
5. Johnny Guitar # 122 (8/10)
6. The Wild Bunch # 136 (12/10)
7. GBU # 169 (11/10)
8. My Darling Clementine # 243 (9/10)
9. ?
10. ?
Ok only 8 so far, still not bad for a genre much maligned in former times.
-
I'd go off the top of my head
1 The Good The Bad and The Ugly in a tie with OUATITW
2 The Wild Bunch
3 Hell's Heroes (1929)
4 The Searchers
5 McCabe & Mrs. Miller
6 Hombre
7 The Tall T
8 My Darling Clementine
9 Red River
10 A Bullet For The General
-
Wrong thread for a western top 10 I think.
But do we have such a thread? If not we should make one.
-
Wrong thread for a western top 10 I think.
But do we have such a thread? If not we should make one.
http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=13250.0
-
http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=13250.0
I like my list there better, since I put some time into that one.