In his column about the revival of Max Ophuls' "The Earrings of Madame de...," the dean of American film critics, Andrew Sarris, proclaims Ophüls' masterwork the greatest film of all time -- edging out, as the headline puts it, "Welles, Renoir, Ford, Hitchcock, Chaplin, Buñuel, Mizoguchi." [Please note: Dave Kehr points out that there is no umlaut in "Ophuls" -- although that's how it was (mis-)spelled in Sarris's NY Observer piece.]
Writes Sarris:
If you’ve never seen this masterpiece, now is your chance—and even if you have, a second or third viewing is strongly recommended. If you don’t choose to take my word for the film’s sublimity, then heed the sagacious words of Dave Kehr instead: “Should the day ever come when movies are granted the same respect as the other arts, 'The Earrings of Madame de …' will instantly be recognized as one of the most beautiful things ever created by human hands.”On a personal note: My favorite Ophuls (among the greatest films of all time in my book) is "Letter From an Unknown Woman" (though "Madame de..." is indeed surely one of the most exquisite things that has ever appeared on the planet; I treasure my laserdisc "print" and hope it will be on Region 1 DVD soon -- along with all the other great Ophuls films that are already available in Region 2). I'd agree with Sarris on the Renoir ("Rules of the Game"), Ford ("The Searchers"), Hitchock ("Vertigo"), Murnau ("Sunrise") and, depending on what day of the week it is, the Welles ("The Magnificent Ambersons"). (On my 2002 Sight & Sound international critics' poll ballot I chose both "Kane" and "Ambersons" in my top 10.) I wouldn't have a Chaplin on my list, but "Modern Times" is tops in my book.
“Perfection,” proclaimed the late Pauline Kael, in one of her more perceptive pronouncements. And David Thomson delivers an eloquent encomium to Ophüls with a remarkably expansive entry in his much-honored "The New Biographical History of Film."
Curiously, I’ve had a much harder time convincing my students in film class of the “greatness” of Ophüls and "Madame de…". It may partly be a generation gap, and partly the youthful suspicion of romanticism in some of its less cynical guises. Then again, even among my contemporaries, I have become notorious over the years for my ecstatic—to the point of orgasmic—addiction to camera movement as an expression of the tyranny of time in the drama of human life. This predilection on my part may be something I picked up from the unified-visual-field theories of the late André Bazin.
Though it's only a matter of degree, my favorite Buñuel is probably "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" or "That Obscure Object of Desire" or "The Criminal Life of Archibaldo de la Cruz" or "Nazarin" or "Simon of the Desert" or "The Exterminating Angel" or... -- OK, I have way too many favorite Buñuels. And my favorite Mizoguchi would not be "Ugetsu," which I'd put below "Sansho Dayu" and "The Life of Oharu." I love Keaton's "Our Hospitality," "Sherlock, Jr.," and "Steamboat Bill, Jr." even more than "The General" -- though I could probably make a case for ten Keatons as the greatest films of all time.
But if you had to choose from Sarris's top ten, which would you consider The Greatest Film of All Time?
Oh God Oh God Oh God Oh God Oh God. I both love and dread making these types of choices, and I go nuts with excruciating internal debate that inevitably ends with me picking something out at random. I'm reminded of my sophomore year in high school, when my physics teacher promised an A to whomever could push against a wall and emerge on the other side; he explained that there was always an almost infinitely minute chance of the atoms in our bodies being arranged just so that they would slide past those of the wall. So I chose "The Searchers," 'cause that's the way my brain atoms were arranged at the particular time I clicked the button. And although I will probably sleep restlessly tonight, agonizing over my choice, permutating arguments and counterarguments, I am confident any of the listed films would make a fine candidate for Most Awesome Thing in the Whole Frickin' Universe Award because they are all Frickin' Awesome and rock like Angus Young or Keith Richards hitting someone upside the head with an SG/Telecaster -- even though I could annoyingly quibble and whine about whether these are the best films by these particular directors.
Certainly Sarris' list is a list of an old man telling his readers what films he likes the most. I think of it as a kind of connoisseur's list of educated preferences. At one time Sarris might have been like the champions of the Impressioninst painters who where rejected by the academie. Now he is part of the academie championing what has gone before. Interrestingly, according to Sarris, there has not been a film made in the past 40 years (40 years!!!) that qualifies to be in his top ten. So, although I like Sarris, I feel as though he's a bit long in the tooth. I will say, though, that "The Earrings of Madame de...," is a remarkable film. And I voted for "Rules of the Game" if that matters anyhoo.
Wow, I don't know if I should admit this or not, but I've only seen one of those films.... How embarrassing....
From Sarris's list I would choose either "Vertigo" or "The General". "Psycho" is in my personal top ten just barely ahead of "Vertigo" but I never argue with anyone who puts "Vertigo" on their own list. "The General" I believe is Keaton's greatest achievement even above "Sherlock, Jr." and "Steamboat Bill, Jr." which I both consider a tad overrated, and also above "Our Hospitality" which I find is vastly underrated. I would for sure agree with you though Jim that you could make an entire Keaton top ten and say it's the all time top ten and it'd be hard to argue with it. However, my own personal favorite movie is Coppola's "The Godfather", which for me towers above all other movies.
I say none of them. I'm getting kind of tired of these lists that feel they can't list anything more modern than the late 60s without coming off as not seeming important. Where is Taxi Driver? Raging Bull? The Conversation? Pulp Fiction? The Big Lebowski? Do we really have to feel important by picking the same films over and over again. Is it more about liking a film, or just figuring out which is considered the greatest? Is it about technique, emotional impact? I find a lot of these greatest film list to be infuriating. Yes, I've seen Citizen Kane a thousand times... but it is nowhere near the greatest film ever made. In fact, I feel like it's pretty out of date. Especially in the acting department. Aren't we glad cinema advanced and we got great, natural performances by Brando, De Niro, Harvey Keital, and others? I dunno, I guess I'm coming off with as an asshole but all these lists start looking the same to me, even if Sarris had a few different foreign choices in his list.
I've got to say both of your listings of "Ambersons" must be an act of dishonesty. Neither of you can be calling the actual film itself as one of the greatest. Instead, you're crediting the non-existent Ambersons of the mind, the one we all wished could exist at the full 131 minutes, which very well might legitimately atop such a list. But the film we have, not the one we dream of, is clearly flawed, incomplete, frustrating, and concludes in an astonishingly abrupt fashion. Interesting and key piece of film history. The Holy Grail, if we ever found the true version.... but the 88-minute version? One of the ten best? Please.
As the previous poster said, it is extremely difficult to make a choice from this list..."Vertigo", "The Rules of the Game", "Sunrise" and "The General" are all among my favourite fifty films of all-time. In the end, I went with "Vertigo"...but man, the humanism and humour of "The Rules of the Game", the joyousness of "Sunrise", and the ingenious scale to the gags in "The General" all gnaw away at me. Any one of those four would be a worthy choice in my mind.
I very much admire and enjoy "The Searchers", "Ugetsu" and "Modern Times", though to my eyes they are flawed works that don't nearly approach the level of my personal favourites. "Modern Times" will never approach the heights of "City Lights" in my mind (although the scene where Chaplin is force-fed by a machine may be the funniest I have ever seen in a film). And while "The Searchers" approaches moments of beauty and grace like few other films, I've always felt that Ford's best film is the more coherent (in terms of character and theme) "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance", even though I recognize that "The Searchers" is more cinematic.
Much to my disgrace, I have yet to see "The Magnificent Ambersons", "The Earrings of Madame De...", or "Belle de Jour". I have been waiting for "Ambersons" and "Earrings" to arrive on DVD, and as soon as they do, they'll skyrocket to the top of my "must-see" list. While I am ashamed not have seen those three films yet, I feel fortunate that the joy of discovering such treasures lies ahead.
Funny, I always thought Sarris' favourite film was "Lola Montes."
From that list I'd opt for either "Ugetsu," "Modern Times," or "Belle de jour." "Vertigo," I must say, rubbed me totally the wrong way with its take on obsession. Maybe I was in a foul mood that day or something, which is why I'll concede a re-viewing of it in the future, but I can't quite claim to like it nearly as much as Hitchcock's other classics.
Oh, and Jim, according to an e-mail message from a Criterion Collection representative to a forum user at CriterionForum.org, there will be a Max Ophuls box set coming out in late '07/early '08 with Earrings Of Madame De.. confirmed for inclusion.
I voted for Rules Of The Game, while it isn't my pick for Greatest Movie Of All Time, it's in my top 5. Seven Samurai's my #1.
I love all those others, though. Except the Ophüls, which I haven't seen (waiting for Criterion) and Ambersons, which just makes me sad.
I can relate to N. Farias' pain (though maybe just one "Oh, God!" would have sufficed). But I bucked up, faced the music and picked, from this old man's list, The Rules of the Game. (The General and Ugetsu monogatari are nipping at its heels though and, given the possibility of that finite rearrangement of molecules, could overtake the top spot off Sarris' list at any time.)
By the way, I don't think there's anything wrong with this being "an old man's" (or woman's) list. Film history is what it is-- it cannot be changed-- and the tastes of critics who came of age in a different era are necessarily going to reflect a more established series of films, the names of which are going to crop up in more than one list of this kind. I think Sarris' leaving off anything after 1966 from his list reflects a respect for history rather than his blindness toward what's been happening since then. And if I saw a bunch of "greatest films" that forwent a lot of the films mentioned by Sarris and everyone else here and were weighted toward the '70s and '80s, I might think that the critics polled needed to get a little more familiar with that history.
By excluding anything newer than Bunuel's Belle de Jour, I think Sarris is merely acknowledging (without making a statement) that one of the most important tests of a film's greatness is the one put to it by the passage of time. I know Sarris thinks there were many great films made in the last 41 years, but perhaps he simply doesn't think they're great enough to supplant the ones that we're still talking about 81 years later.
(My own embarrassing admission: I've yet to see The Earrings of Madame De... or Sunrise. In the immortal words of Regan McNeil, "help me!")
My favorite blog yet Jim. So many interesting things to discuss.
I've only seen Vertigo and Ambersons from this list, and I vote Ambersons. It's a great movie at any length. I prefer it to Citizen Kane. The storyline sounds as if it could be Kane's- a spoiled brat gets his come-uppance. But Kane to me always seemed a bit pathetic, wheras Georgie creates such loathing we are able to relish his demise.
Vertigo is behind North By Northwest and Psycho for me.
I feel no shame in admitting that I have only seen two of these films! I'm 37 years old. I'm not a critic or in any way "in film", I'm just a fan of good movies. And I'm thankful for lists like these and blogs like these, which help me expand my horizens.
I haven't seen Belle de Jour, but I did just watch The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, and it was incredible. It's now one of my all time favorites. I look forward to seeing more Bunuel.
Which gets me to my last point. WHEN and WHERE you watch a movie is critical in how the movie impacts the viewer. GOODFELLAS, PULP FICTION, BOOGIE NIGHTS, these films I saw in a theater, with my peers, without much advance knowledge- I just went out for a night at the movies, and was understandably blown away.
These other "classic" films, I have to seek out for a reason. I watch them at home. My expectations are high that I will be watching a great film. More often then not I am. But it's much harder for these movies to impact me as much as the ones from my "generation", which I somehow feel more "connected" to.
I was only half kidding about Discreet Charm- it really is that good, in a way it's actually the best movie I've ever seen. But I was also commenting on our (my?) tendency to favor films viewed more recently. Maybe Sarris stopped going to the movies in the Sixties!
Christian's remarks are the inverse of mine whenever I see a "favorite films" thread on a non-film geek message board... Did you guys know that "Fight Club" and "The Shawshank Redemption" are the greatest films of all time...This includes screenwriting message boards, by the way. Well, maybe that shouldn't be a surprise.
It's interesting that among the commenters, "Rules of the Game" seems to be the winner. It was my choice this time, and for years it was what I'd give as my favorite when forced to the wall. It was usually a non-film-geek doing the forcing -- though often an aspiring film professional -- and rarely had any of them heard of it, much less seen it. These days, I'd probably answer the question with "The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp." More blank looks.
Among the others, the only ones that's are big personal favorites are "The Searchers" and "Modern Times." "Vertigo" may be a look inside Hitch's deeply messed up id, but I'd say that "Rear Window," "Notorious" and "Shadow of a Doubt" are all far richer films. But that might just be my preference for talkies talking.
Also, when I took "Film Authors" at school, "Earrings" was my least favorite of the six or so Ophuls films we saw. Guess I'll have to take another look.
Oh, and what Mason said about "Ambersons."
Dennis--
Thank for, as always, reminding us of the importance of film history, and (again, as always) expressing your disagreement with another poster with tremendous grace, calm and empathy. You are truly a gentleman, the Joseph Cotten, perhaps, of film bloggers.
And now, tomorrow, and always-- Rules of the Game. BTW, anyone who thinks this endlessly open and alive film is an "old man's movie" (even if we agree that isn't a bad thing at all) clearly hasn't seen it in awhile-- I defy anyone working today to make anything that pops with this much wit, commentary, and a deeply felt sense of the pitfalls (and absolute necessity) of love.
Can't argue with "Lola Montes," either. But Mr. Emerson, is Ophuls' "Letter" on DVD? I saw it on a laserdisc years ago and loved it, but long for a new, clean print (maybe criterion will release it with Earrings after this revival?).
Aha, this will teach me to only skim before posting-- thanks, Greg, for the note about the criterion ophuls set (and what great news!)
Bob-- I love "Colonel Blimp," too, and if a Powell/Pressburger film like "The Red Shoes," "I Know Where I'm Going!" or (best of all) "The Small Back Room" had been on Sarris's list, I might have voted for it. I don't think any of those films is better than Renoir's but MIchael Powell definitely deserves renewed attention.
While I will always pick the Sarris side of the Sarris-Kael debate (if one has to do a silly thing like pick a side in that one), I have never been particularly keen on Sarris' most-praised picks. Indeed, I find him surprisingly conventional, a point that was really driven home to me on his special feature on the Criterion release of "Heaven Can Wait" when he complained about all the nasty, evil atheists in the world, or in Hollywood or something or other like that.
While I'm down with most of the directors he champions in this list, I definitely don't care for some of the picks. Indeed, I consider "Bell de Jour" Bunuel's least interesting well-known feature (and I love my Bunuel, believe me) and likewise I find "Vertigo" to be Hitchcock's least interesting well-known feature (do I get points for avoiding use of the term "overrated")? And for that matter, "The Searchers" is probably one of my least favorite Ford/Wayne collaborations: I'll take any of the films in the "cavalry trilogy" over it. I bow to nobody in my love for Orson Welles but I can think of at least ten better Welles' films than the butchered version of "Ambersons" that is all we have of his original vision.
Out of the picks, I selected "Sunrise" probably Murnau's best and the only film on the list that would make my personal Top 25 or so.
I also agree with Jim that "Letters from an Unknown Woman" is the better Ophuls' films, though both are excellent.
I voted "The General," although I would also rank "Sherlock, Jr." and a few other Keatons higher. Sunrise is close. I had a similar reaction of Bunuel favorites when I saw "Belle de Jour"—I'd probably end on "Discreet Charm," but it would be a tough choice.
Predictable though it may be, I would rank Kane as my favorite Welles, and probably put Ambersons after The Trial and maybe Chimes at Midnight.
Modern Times always felt a bit disjointed to me, a bunch of clever performances pieces for their own sake. (Not saying it's a bad film by any means, just not in the top 10 of all time.)
Hi, Jim,
Just to bring this interesting debate down a notch or two, let me be a pedant and point out that you've stumbled on one of my two favorite critical bugaboos: Ophuls never, ever spelled his name with an umlaut (and in fact, if you look at the excellent new disc of "Le Plaisir" from Britain, you can see where someone has gone to the negative and tried to scratch the umlaut off of Ophuls' credit). The name was, of course, a psuedonym, reportedly given him by one of his first drama teachers in memory of one of his (the teacher's) former girlfriends.
Bugaboo two: the constant, maddening use of "cineaste" to mean "cinephile." But we'll save that fascinating topic for another time.
all best
Dave
Bob, well I think listing Fight Club as the greatest movie ever made is weird, also. Actually, I saw 300 and afterwards many people told me it was the greatest movie ever made. I said, well it was okay, but you haven't seen many films if you think it's the greatest ever. I just find it incredibly frustrating to see the same films listed in a conservative fashion. It's almost as if every visual artist should answer his favorite artist to be Vincent Van Gogh. I guess I'm just rambling about a tick I have. But yeah, I like Jim's list a lot more than Mr. Sarris, it seems less showy.
I've seen most of them. Vertigo was an easy choice, although I wouldn't say anything against the other ones on the list.
I think Christian makes an interesting point. Sometimes I do have to wonder if these lists only include old movies just by coincidence or if the critic is trying to retain legitimacy by praising "the classics."
My personal top 10:
1. Pulp Fiction
2. Vertigo
3. Pan's Labyrinth
4. 2001: A Space Odyssey
5. Schindler's List
6. Un Chien Andalou
7. The Third Man
8. Aguirre: Wrath Of God
9. The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly
10. The Godfather
I picked The General over Vertigo just because The General is so exuberant in embracing the wonder of cinema as a visual medium. Not to say that Vertigo does not, but Vertigo's runtime always hurts it in my opinion.
Among the others, I've only seen The Searchers, Modern Times and Sunrise. All great films, as are the others I'm sure, but all wonderfully different.
I find it more than a bit upsetting, but not surprising, that the most recent film on this list is from 1967(Bunuel's).
Toss up between Rules of the Game and Sunrise, so I chose Sunrise.
I'd also disagree with this Christian fellow. Film art doesn't "advance" in a linear fashion like home theatre technology. Joseph Cotten isn't a polaroid to DeNiro's digicam. "Up to date" has nothing to do with an art's achievement--what we see now isn't the farthest step in the form's progress toward some ideal of cinema. Madame De... is a greater film than Taxi Driver by, like, miles.
Thanks for the umlaut alert, Dave. I copied them straight out of Sarris's New York Observer" piece, and then pasted 'em into my own mentions of Ophuls. (IMDb uses umlauts for both Max and Marcel.) I will now correct them, above!
When I posted a list, for my own amusement, of 100 favorite films (10? are you kidding me?), I discovered I had more Max Ophuls listed than anyone else. I also prefer Letter from an Unknown Woman, but Earrings of Madame de... is beautiful indeed.
All the same, from that poll list I too picked Rules of the Game.
P.S. I must stick up for MY favorite Bunuel, Viridiana.
The only two on the list I haven't seen are "The Earrings of Madame de..." and "Ugetsu Monogatari." It's a pretty great list. I'd say "Sunrise" is my favorite of those, with "Vertigo" a close second.
Funny, I love "Belle de Jour" but it would barely be in my top five Bunuel movies, with "Discreet Charm," "Un Chien Andalou," "Viridiana," and "Exterminating Angel" all outranking it, IMO.
Regarding "old man lists": I may have been the first responder in this string to refer to Sarris' list as an old man's list. This is not a denigration, but merely an observation that any personal faves list will come from one's own experience and context. I'm am getting a bit long in the tooth myself and, personally, Rules of the Game is my all-time favorite film. However, I do find it interesting that Sarris did not have any film on his list post-1967. That's forty years of filmmaking not on the list. Maybe he has carefully considered those 40 years and didn't find anything to put on his list. My guess is, though, that his list is a very personally one and, therefore, it reflects more on who he is and where he is in life than on what's available in the history of film. If anything Sarris' list is a kind of counter-list to the typical "young guy lists" that are so often in dire need of a little more history under their belts. So I say hooray for old guy lists!
"Viridiana" is indeed brilliant, and I'll mention "Susana" as another great, overlooked Bunuel. They really should have told the man to cool it with the masterpieces.
An important thing to remember about this list is that it's Sarris's personal choices, not an end-all roud-up of the best films ever. It's hard enough to only pick 10 films made before the late 60s. Give Sarris a break. I'm sure many people complaining might come up with lists that don't contain any movies made before 1940.
JE: You know what else is wonderful Bunuel? "El"! And we haven't even mentioned "Diary of a Chambermaid"...
Even worse, we got this far without mentioning "Land without Bread." But, y'know, that Bunuel guy he's overrated. Anybody can make, like 15 or 20 great films if he keeps going at it for 50 years.
No love for The Phantom Of Liberty?
I've only seen four here, but I'd pick "Vertigo" out of all of these. It's the only one in my top ten.
While I think Vertigo is probably Hitchcock's best it is not my favorite and I haven't seen The Searchers or any Foreign language films or any Silent films.Anyway,here is so far my ten greatest
1.Casablanca
2.Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
3.The Godfather Part II
4.Sunset Boulevard
5.Strangers on a Train
6.Hoop Dreams
7.The Empire Strikes Back
8.Raging Bull
9.Apocalypse Now
10.Pinocchio