I don't disagree at all with Andy Horbal's list of reservations about annual critics' "Ten Best Lists." Andy (host of the recent, too-marvelous-for-words Film Criticism Blog-a-Thon), sizes up the obvious shortcomings of such vain hierarchical endeavors:
The interest and the function of a list depends entirely on what the author decides to do with it and how well he or she explains that decision. This requires perspective: an awareness of what such a project can reasonably accomplish and what its significance in the larger film world is. It requires, for instance, a discussion of the films from the previous year that the critic saw in relation to the films that he or she missed. It definitely requires a discussion, as opposed to merely descriptions.Couldn't agree more. When I was a full-time daily newspaper film critic, first in Seattle and then in LA, I saw virtually everything that was released (even stuff I didn't review), which sometimes amounted to 200+ movies a year. These days, when I'm asked to do a Ten Best list, I always feel like I haven't done my homework, because there's just no way I can see even the stuff I think might be ten-best-worthy -- which means I'm not likely to belatedly discover any surprises I haven't already come across earlier in the year because I'm so busy cramming during the overloaded November-December movie season, including watching DVD releases and screeners from previous months' releases. (How the hell did I ever do this in the years before home video, I wonder?) And I always try to provide a list of movies I haven't seen -- particularly when I've noticed they've been prized by critics and friends.
But we should acknowledge that there's inevitably an element of serendipity at work in anybody's movie year -- above and beyond the choices made by international distribution and local exhibition companies. Would I have seen Ramin Bahrani's "Man Push Cart" if I hadn't been introduced to it at Roger Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival in May? Would I have come to value Doug Block's "51 Birch Street" so highly if I hadn't seen it at the Toronto Film Festival in 2005, presented it at the 2006 Floating Film Festival, and then reviewed it for the Chicago Sun-Times more than a year after I'd first encountered it? Would I have chanced upon Neil Marshall's "The Descent" if Roger hadn't suffered complications from his surgery this summer and a friend (who'd watched the British DVD release) hadn't suggested it was worth seeing when the Sun-Times was looking for reviews? Would I have overcome my resistance to seeing "Flags of Our Fathers" (those artsy monochromatic images in the trailer and TV spots really turned me off) if I hadn't felt I needed to see it before making a ten best list? I have no way of knowing.
To me, a ten best list is like a personality inventory -- a rough sketch of who I was (and what mattered to me most) during a particular year. (I used to participate in critics' polls for music, too, but that's even more overwhelming.) Reviews of new releases (written on deadline) have their limitations as film criticism, and so do lists, as Andy smartly details, but at their best they can be creative and illuminating and thoughtful -- almost like critical haiku. This year, I'll be doing at least three such lists, with different sets of criteria set by the editors: for MSN Movies, for the LA Weekly critics' poll, and for myself, here at Scanners. Most of the lists will overlap, but I hope readers will find intriguing discoveries within them.
Never have I whined as much about making a ten best list as I did in 2006 -- mainly because I felt like I had so much stuff to watch -- and so little time. But before I present mine, let me offer a complementary list to Andy's (and he mentions some of these things, too):
What Can Be Good About Ten Best Lists:
1) They force a critic to try (usually in vain) to summarize what he/she values in each movie on the list. That can make for a worthy -- if almost impossibly difficult -- writing challenge, for those who attempt to rise to it.
2) They pique readers' interest in films they haven't seen, didn't want to see (boy, was I wrong about "Flags of Our Fathers" -- more on that later), or didn't like. Of course, that depends on how open a reader is to being persuaded, but my hope is that putting a title on my list will help some people make some exciting discoveries they might otherwise have missed.
3) They're a handy way to evaluate the critic (even more than the year -- which is an arbitrary consideration, anyway). Looking at somebody's list can tell you something about a person's taste and values -- not unlike looking at somebody's recent book, DVD, or music purchases. I don't know about you, but those are the first things I check out when I go to somebody's home for the first time. I dare say it's at least as revealing (to me) as rummaging through their medicine cabinet or underwear drawer -- and far more socially acceptable.
Yes, these lists are doomed, limited enterprises. And the number ten is almost arbitrary, although there are probably solid reasons we tend to think in groups of ten -- reasons that have as much to do with Darwinian development (ten fingers -- handy for counting!) as they do with our Arabic numeral system (where would we be without the introduction of the symbol for zero?). As enthusiasms wax and wane, you catch up with older movies from previous years, or you revisit movies you've listed and found them better, worse or different than you thought they were when you made your list, you may be tempted to revise your rankings. But that's just part of the game (and it is just a game). A ten best list is simply a snapshot of what you've seen out of what was released in your area during a calendar year, and what you've found worthwhile at the time you make the list. That's about it.
I've been thinking a lot about Andy's comments too as I approach the task of compiling a ten-best list before the end of the year. And the observation that he made that struck me most was this:
"No one can see every single film released during a given year. For a list to have any significance to me, therefore, I need to have some idea what films the list maker has seen and what films he or she hasn't. When was the last time you saw a Top Ten list in which the critic devoted sufficient space to this complicated, extremely relevant question?"
This is a very important element to my process of compiling a list this year, because (and this relates to another point he esteemed Mr. Horbal made) it has forced me to evaluate just what it is I'm trying to do in compiling a list, and what my function as a critic in the blogosphere is, if I have not even come close to seeing everything I want to see, everything I could see, everything I should see. I've never believed that my role (at least right now) could approach anything resembling that of a full-time daily newspaper critic like you describe—I recognized the limitations on my time right from the get-go and have never felt pressure to necessarily review movies as they come out. Instead, I’ve just hoped that what I’ve felt compelled to talk about is of enough interest and well-written enough to stand on its own, apart from a timeline prescribed by movie or DVD release schedules. (Sometimes I’m lucky, though, and the stars align just so, and some kind of synchronous event occurs!)
I’d actually been viewing this year’s top-ten exercise with some trepidation until I read Andy’s post and realized that what he described—a discussion of what I haven’t seen—could be just as rewarding (in a different way, surely) than what I had seen. I think back on the discussion that took place on this blog re Flags of Our Fathers and the lowered expectations some of us felt before we’d seen it, which translated even into a resistance to seeing it, and how that experience relates to our (my) response when I actually did see the film. (I went through the same kind of process with The Departed-- my response to the actual film this time, however, was not separated enough from my preconceptions of it to have resulted in a particularly pleasurable experience, unfortunately.) This is instructive because it reveals just how one’s preconceptions work in terms of the actual film, especially when they get turned on their head, and it can be revealing to a reader too, I suppose, who may think that a critic considers him or herself to be inside a perfect little sphere of objectivity, above and beyond being influenced in any way by advertising, hype, other people’s opinions, or even, heaven forbid, box-office returns.
All that said, I love looking into the heads of critics I follow and enjoy this time of year, because there’s always something that gets jogged loose in my own awareness, some title I’d never heard of, some angle I’d never considered, something that comes as a surprise, someone going out on a limb for an ignored indie or, as in the case of Kim Morgan’s list, a reviled horror remake (she’s the only smart critic I know of who got behind the recent remake of The Hills Have Eyes, a movie on which even this humble horror fan passed). Lists might not have much in the way of cultural significance, but if, as Andy and you suggest, they can be made revealing for the reader and challenging for the writer, then little other justification is necessary for me. End of pontificating. I’ve got about 20 movies to see between now and December 30!
Great points about ten best lists. I consume them voraciously and very much look forward to writing my own Ten Best list every year. Writing such a list actually teaches me a lot about my own tastes and investments in cinema and about the tastes of many of the critics I appreciate.
Totally agree, Jim, with your point about telling a person's personality by their DVD collection. I have said that to some dates, recently. I said, if you really want to know me, just see what films I own. Many thought I was silly for saying that - at which point, I knew I didn't want to date them.
Glad to see you gave Flags of Our Fathers a chance. I loved the film, but based on your posts from when it opened, I thought you (and many others) would let grudges about Crash affect your feelings about the film.
3) They're a handy way to evaluate the critic (even more than the year -- which is an arbitrary consideration, anyway). Looking at somebody's list can tell you something about a person's taste and values -- not unlike looking at somebody's recent book, DVD, or music purchases. I don't know about you, but those are the first things I check out when I go to somebody's home for the first time. I dare say it's at least as revealing (to me) as rummaging through their medicine cabinet or underwear drawer -- and far more socially acceptable.
Well said. This is even better when the critic has the chance to defend and discuss their selections and to challenge the choices of others, an opportunity that Slate has presented to a lucky few critics each year this decade. I do hope they bring the Movie Club back this year...