Movies are just a little more than 100 years old. Many of them (some say maybe even most of them) are lost or gone -- discarded, intentionally junked or rotted away. Original nitrate stock is extremely volatile, and "safety film," which wouldn't decompose quite so easily, wasn't widely adopted until the mid-1950s. Just look at the filmographies in any movie encyclopedia and you'll be overwhelmed by how many movies, even by famous directors, that you've never seen, whether they still exist or not. (John Ford directed somewhere around 150 of 'em.)
So, I got a kick out of some of the comments about Andrew Sarris's Greatest Movies of All Time (below). Yes, no question, it's an Old White Guy List. Mainly because Sarris is an old white guy, and does not pretend to be anything else (except, maybe, an old white Greek-American New Yorker auteurist guy and champion list-maker). Remember, Sarris built the original "American film pantheon" with what's probably the most influential English-language book of film criticism, "The American Cinema: Directors and Directions 1929-1968." So, is it a coincidence that "Belle de Jour" (1967) is the most recent film on his all-time greatest list? Maybe he just has a longer perspective. (He didn't start writing for the Village Voice until about 1960.) Think of the thousands upon thousands of movies he's seen in order to make up that list. We should all have such a broad film background to draw upon.
I think of it like this: When people decry the Western canon as being about dead white males, they're (partially) right. But there are other canons that are even more exclusive, and most of the greats are... well, still great. We live in an age where we know there's a lot more to art, and art history, than the Western canon, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't value it as much as ever.
At the risk of betraying my Old White Guy roots (I'm sure I've been one since I was about 12), what cracks me up is the assertion, by some people whose idea of film history extends as far back as, say, "Fargo" or "Star Wars" or "The Godfather" or "The Wild Bunch" or "Psycho," that Sarris must be misguided because nothing made in the last 40 years tops his list. (I'm not talking about any specific Scanners commenters here; this is just something I've heard from people for years -- like the ones who accuse me of disingenuousness when I say "Citizen Kane" is about as much fun as I've ever had at the movies -- and is demonstrably rich and profound, besides.)
What difference does it make when a movie was made? What does that have to do with whether it's a great movie or not? The late, great film historian and collector William K. Everson once told me he had little interest in movies made after World War II. Short-sighted? Maybe, but he was perfectly honest about what interested him. And you could easily spend the rest of your life just studying movies that were made before World War II.
Or just the movies made since 1967. In the 2002 Sight and Sound critics' poll, the most recent film in the top ten is "The Godfather, Part II" (1974), which is (quite properly) combined with "The Godfather" (1972). (I don't think "The Godfather" would belong in the top ten if it were not seen in conjunction with "Part II.")
I appreciate what Dennis Cozzalio said:
...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.Me, I grew up in the 1970s, so many of my favorite movies (like "Nashville" and "Chinatown") were those that had an enormous effect on me at the time. But I tend to love and admire movies that not only operate in relationship to a tradition (aesthetic or generic), but also display an appetite for inventing (or reinventing) the cinema. So (to throw out a few generalizations), in the '20s, it was the form of the feature film itself; in the '30s it was the talkie; in '40s it was noir and Italian neorealism; in the '50s it was wide-screen and Method acting; in the '60s it was the French New Wave and new frontiers in sex, language and violence in mainstream American movies... and so on. Those are gross oversimplifications, but the best examples are as exciting to watch now as they ever were...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.
I read a user comment on the IMDb once, on "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," declaring that it was a poor film because no one swore in it. As a result, none of the characters were remotely believable.
But then there are "old white guys" and there are "old white guys." I use the term "old" both liberally and lovingly, of course. You have the "old white guys" like David Thomson who are convinced that nothing worthwhile has been made in the past thirty years. You have the "old white guys" like Jonathan Rosenbaum who makes it one of his petprojects to emphasize how vital _today's_ cinema is, and that masterpieces are being made every year, and furthermore that anyone who decries that "cinema is dead" is simply looking in the wrong places.
Sarris falls somewhere in between because he certainly has championed more recent films, but also sticks to this relative "stodgy" list. But let's also understand that a Top 10 is not, say, a Top 100 (how's that for profound) and his Top 100 may well look very different (by decade, by nationality, by director, etc.)
Time has nothing to do with a film's greatness, but it is fair to say that it is easier to recognize greatness in the rear-view mirror. I look back at some of my "Top Ten" lists from years as recent as the late-90s and see films I had at the bottom of the list or even in the half-complimentary "Honorable Mention" section and think they are much better than my #1 pick of the year.
For no particular reason, I would hesitate to put a film less than, say, five years old into my Top 20, but not into my Top 100 or so. For what that's worth, which probably isn't much.
My own "rapidly approaching middle-aged white guy" list is a bit more recent than Sarris' but still definitely fully grounded in the "approved auteur" tradition. It is also hopelessly American-European though my Top 100 would tell a different tale:
2001 (Kubrick)
Stroszek (Herzog)
Playtime (Tati)
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Leone)
Last Year at Marienbad (Resnais)
A Hard Day's Night (Lester)
Dead Man (Jarmusch)
Edvard Munch (Watkins)
F for Fake (Welles)
A Man Escaped (Bresson)
And so, when I say that I generally don't like much that was made before 1970, do I get to escape with that comment without being called a naive, clueless, closed-minded, no-taste, no-attention-span, PT Anderson-lovin, unsophisticated dolt?
Because, after all, my taste is every bit as valid as those who only like stuff from before 1960.
It's kinda like those people who say there was no good rock and roll after Led Zeppelin. I usually find those people to be the same that say "Damn kids today ..." - forgetting that there was a time when Elvis was considered incendiary and their parents all thought it was talentless noise.
I'm a bit of a young'n (19), but I certainly understand and appreciate that an older critic (like Sarris) will be more personally drawn to older films. When making personal lists, like you said, Jim, I think it's very much a matter of personal development. Sarris' approach to film maybe hasn't been effected significantly by any films released after 1967, or maybe it isn't a conscious thing at all and he just really loves these movies. These films form his personal core and that's what such a list should be. If he was making an impersonal list, I'm sure it would be drastically different, but that would negate the point. If I were to become a critic, I'm sure there would be more recent films (relative to our current time) in my list than in the previous generation's, because I developed with those films. Now, other films, including older ones, certainly have an impact. I just think it's one guy and this is what film is for him. How can you judge it that harshly? It's personal. I don't think it should really be interpreted as an objective statement.
That being said, here's my top ten:
Magnolia (Anderson)
Eraserhead (Lynch)
8 1/2 (Fellini)
Winter Light (Bergman)
Taxi Driver (Scorsese)
I Heart Huckabees (Russell)
The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (Bunuel)
Persona (Bergman)
Mirror (Tarkovsky)
Waking Life (Linklater)
Two things are important to consider when making the "old white guy" accusation (and from now on, I'm just going to use the phrase "old guy", since the "white" unnecessarily brings race into a matter of taste).
The first is that, in my experience at least, people generally tend to have formative impressions made during the period between the ages of 15 and 30. It is when we are at our most intellectually inquisitive and receptive...just equipped enough to understand the quality of what we are seeing or experiencing, while naive enough to not automatically recognize its historical predecessors. This applies to many walks of life. Ask a twenty year-old who the greatest baseball player of all-time is, and they're likely to say Albert Pujols, Alex Rodriguez or Barry Bonds. Ask a sixty year-old, and they'll rhyme off Mantle and Mays. So Sarris is perhaps slightly influenced by the sense of wondrous discovery he had in viewing his personal favourites (and writing influential articles about them) during his younger years. Granted, for all I know, some of the titles on the list were films that Sarris only later discovered, but I somehow doubt it.
The second important factor is that, whenever someone is making up a "GREATEST" list or even the more subjective and peronsal "FAVOURITE" list, they are apt to mix in at least some objectivity, or give at least some credit to influence on the medium. Thus, older films tend to benefit because they obviously came first and thus could be more influential in certain ways.
Say, for example, that a person enjoyed (in the fullest sense, meaning the experience of watching the film and the analysis of the film), "Citizen Kane" and "Fargo" almost equally. "Fargo", while brilliantly directed and featuring one of the greatest scripts ever written, is nowhere near as influential on the art of cinema as "Citizen Kane" has proven to be. Thus, one might be inclined to give the nod to "Citizen Kane".
My personal favourite film, and the film that I would argue is the greatest the medium has ever produced, is Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List". But it can be subjected to an analysis in which all of its previous influences from great movies are revealed: the German Expressionist influence on some scenes or the "Battle of Algiers"-style filming of the "liquidation" of the ghetto. These influences wouldn't stop me from naming it as the greatest film of all-time, but I could certainly see how some might snicker at that as a choice, given that it is not a singular, influential achievement in film history.
There is one other factor at work here, particularly for an auterist like Sarris. Very often, I suspect (and not in an accusatorial manner) that critics who form "favourite" lists are really beginning with their favourite ten directors and then selecting a body of work that to them serves as a sort of master statement for those directors. Look at the films on Sarris' list...they all meet this criteria. Of course great films are naturally going to have great directors who have probably done other great works, but as I said, I often get the suspicion that these lists are meant to inspire their readers to fully explore the entire canons of the directors mentioned. To again return to my personal list of favourites, it includes (the much-maligned in some circles) "The Shawshank Redemption". If I'm being honest, I would include it on my list, but I would never for a moment suggest that Frank Darabont belong in the same company as Kurosawa, Bergman, Spielberg, Hitchcock or Murnau (particularly after enduring "The Green Mile").
These and other factors make any sort of list-making endeavor difficult, both for the writer creating the list and for the reader interpreting it. We should consider them before necessarily passing judgment on Sarris' opinions about post-1967 films.
...Or maybe I'm wrong and the list really is the expression of an old curmudgeon who thinks that movies have turned into crap.
Well I'm only 24 so I'm not as far sighted as some but I think I am way more aware of movies made before 1994 than most people my age so, here is my top ten list.
Pulp Fiction (Tarantino)
Raging Bull (Scorcese)
Le Samourai (Melville)
Collateral (Mann)
Breathless (Godard)
Rio Bravo (Hawks)
Fight Club (Fincher)
High Fidelity (Frears)
Hard Boiled (Woo)
Unforgiven (Eastwood)
In 2002, I compiled a Ten Best list for Senses of Cinema:
The Birth of a Nation (D.W. Griffith, 1915)
Greed (Erich von Stroheim, 1925)
The Crowd (King Vidor, 1928)
Sunrise (F.W. Murnau, 1927)
Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941)
Stray Dog (Akira Kurosawa, 1949)
Ugetsu Monogatari (Kenji Mizoguchi, 1953)
Un Condamné à Mort s’est Echappé (Robert Bresson, 1956)
Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie (Luis Buñuel, 1972)
La Belle Noiseuse (Jacques Rivette, 1991)
…and then as now, with the exception of Kane, anything made after the silent era seems to me either tentative or subjective.
I seem to be on the same page with you, Jim, in thinking that though the complaint about "old white guys" has some merit, it doesn't make the films on their lists any less great. Much of this has more to do with the nature of lists than the nature of age (or whiteness, or maleness). There's always something slightly disengenuous about these lists--unless you are making a list of "favorites," and even then, there can be dishonesty. If we all fessed up, I think we would admit that when we make top ten lists, we try to put on a couple of indisputable masterpieces to add credibility, but then we try to champion a few films that we think are underrated. Or we try to show off our expertise or insight or individuality by putting on, say, "Magnificent Ambersons" instead of "Citizen Kane." And what does "best" mean when it doesn't mean "favorite"? I realize there is a difference, but the difference is also personal and individual, so the practical difference is minimal.
As for old movies compared to new movies, I think we approach older films differently. We may not get the subtle acting style of today's movies in an older film, but that doesn't mean the acting isn't great. We don't go to the opera for subtlety either. I don't see a Shakespeare play and feel disappointed that the dialogue doesn't sound like Mamet. No style is inherently better than another. It's a question of what the artist (or artists) achieves with that style.
I would also agree with Christopher that "it is easier to recognize greatness in the rear-view mirror." And my picks as to which films were the best in a given year has changed as I look back as well.
As for more recent films that I can picture myself championing down the road in my "old white guy" phase are "Yi Yi," Tom Tykwer's "Heaven," and "Dogville." The first two were below most people's radar, and the third is derided by many but is an unqualified masterpiece, in my opinion.
Well, I blog about Hollywood studio-era movies (with an occasional digression), so I guess I chose a Dead White Guy beat. It is easier (and often safer) to pick the greats from a long distance, but there are fashions in Dead Director Guys too. Wilder is enjoying a huge renaissance; he was not taken as seriously when I first started watching and reading about movies in a concentrated way in the 1980s. Ford, on the other hand, is on something of a downswing, as you pointed out when you recently issued (ahem) a gentle corrective to a certain Slate critic. Richard Schickel, when he did his 100 best of the 20th century, included not a single Ford, which to me is like summarizing the 19th century novel and skipping Dickens. And maybe this is just my perception, but doesn't it seem that Kurosawa is not worshipped as he once was?
Maybe, rather than adhering to a 10 (or even 100) best format, it makes more sense to attempt to identify a canon, as Paul Schrader attempted recently. The canon may contain films that you genuinely adore (I also found Citizen Kane hugely entertaining, by the by). Or it may have some that you dislike or find overrated. But there are certain movies that cannot be ignored in terms of influence and of advancing the possibilities inherent in film.
But how much of it is having a longer perspective, and how much of it is nostalgia? I think people are automatically more invested in films that came out in their own time: they provide touchstones for your own life.
And, as new films come out as reactions to earlier films—and in pushing the limits of what was considered "acceptable"—there's bound to be a reaction by older viewers that filmmaking is in decline, rather than a desire by filmmakers to explore new territory and respond to a new audience. The "old man" argument isn't (for me) that they like old, good films, but that they don't like new, good films.
I'd disagree with Bill Stiteler, the boldest old white guy hater here, on two points:
First, it's easy to knock Sarris and the like as being nostalgic and chalking their lists up to nostalgia, senility, conservatism, fuddy-duddy-ness, or whatever.
It's a matter of perspective. If your working knowledge of film covers English-language film from the 1970s forward, dozens of films made in the last 5 years will seem remarkable. If it covers American sound film on, fewer than dozens. American film the start, fewer still. If you're open to film traditions from around the world (or even just Europe and Japan), all but a handful of films made within the last five years will seem pretty dull, looking and sounding a whole lot like one another. A strong sense of history doesn't make you more conservative; it makes you more open to different aesthetic experiences. Differences you didn't think could exist between films--form, style, how they communicate to viewers, etc., etc.--will become apparent, and Ozu, Ford, Murnau, Mizoguchi, Ophuls will look much more radical and "unacceptable" than Tarantino, Russell, Fincher, Scorsese, PT Anderson., etc. So, the "new, good" films you speak of aren't as good as you seem to think.
Second, I have doubts about this "desire by filmmakers to explore new territory and respond to a new audience." When folks say this they're not talking about aesthetics, although they're usually not aware of us much, and are nostalgically remembering the 1960s and '70s-- when f-bombs, sex, and stories that unsettled some sorta "mainstream" were novel. Indie film has been stuck in this rut for the last twenty years (Bordwell writes about this eloquently on his blog, linked somewhere on this blog). For all their purported freakin of the squares, these filmmakers are as aesthetically conservative as the Hollywood filmmakers they fancy themselves battling so boldly. It's not our outrage we're trying to stifle with such lists; it's our yawns.
AdamW: That's not what I meant at all. Did you read the part about William K. Everson? I wrote:
Or just the movies made since 1967.Concentrate on whatever you like (Japanese silent film, or Bollywood musicals), but at least be aware of what you're leaving out. I don't see much difference between only wanting to see films made before a certain time and only wanting to see films made after a certain time.
As Christopher Long mentioned, I'm on the side of Jonathan Rosenbaum in believing that there are still vital films and filmmakers today. But I'm reacting to those who create "all-time great" pantheons without having seen films from "all times." Sarris, who has been reviewing movies steadily for many decades, has seen a lot, and of the movies he values most, "Belle de Jour" is the most recent. That wouldn't be my choice, but I respect the vast experience upon which his list is based.
There are so many movies out there that I often don't get around to rewatching one for years, even if I loved it the first time, and I would never call it one of the greatest ever before seeing it again. This makes me rather slow to alter my own list and therefore it would come across as dated to many even though I am definitely not one of those that thinks the movies suck nowadays. Quite the contrary. It's hard to really know just how many awful films from, say, the 70s have disappeared from our consciousness while we remember that decade as rife with classics. But my suspicion is that even if the very greatest films are in the past (and I'm not saying they are), when it comes to quantity of good to very good, the last 15 years hold up to any such period and I'm a middle-aged, at least, white guy. My last top ten addition is Fargo but in 2015 it might include something from 2001. And so forth.
As some have observed here, many great film lists give extra weight to influence and history in a way that is bound to tilt towards the founding fathers. Bonds and Pujols, etc. might break all Ruth and Aaron's records but they can't be the first Ruth like the Babe was, and there definitely can't be another Jackie Robinson. Not unless his name is Obama, or something.
PM - "A strong sense of history doesn't make you more conservative; it makes you more open to different aesthetic experiences."
Very well put. That's why I am much more suspicious of a "greatest" list whose earliest film dates to 1970, than I am of one with an end date of 1967.
I have to strongly agree with Campaspe, re: being "more suspicious of a 'greatest' list whose earliest film dates to 1970, than I am of one with an end date of 1967." On the other hand, I also respect the fact that there are many young, enthusiastic cinephiles who simply haven't had the time yet to watch too many "old" movies, and I would rather see an honest list from them than a more vetted list that they have been told is more appropriate. Hey, you can't love a film you haven't seen. Although I would argue that you can hate one that you haven't seen (I hate "300" just from the trailer, and from the drool-fest I have had to endure about it), but that's another story.
As much as I firmy believe there are great (and I mean capital G R E A T) films being made every year, I still feel like I need to put them on the shelf and let them sit for a while before I can officially canonize them.
Take my three favorite films of 2006: The Death of Mr. Lazarescu, Colossal Youth and Still Life. I think they are modern masterpieces, but I'm not ready to canonize them yet. In ten years, one or two or even all three of them may sit high up in my own pantheon. On the other hand, if I had to hazard a guess, I wouldn't be surprised if I thought a little less of "Lazarescu" in the future, and even more of "Colossal Youth." Only time will tell.
I am tempted to call "Touching the Void" one of the all-time great documentaries, but I still feel like that's a bit rash, even though it may be my favorite film of the new millennium.
As a young (22), black, guy, I can say Sarris' taste isn't entirely dissimilar from my own, in terms of eras, directors, or genres, though my own top 10 is more chronologically diverse, if I expand it to a top 50 or 100, I imagine there'd be much overlap.
I love that I get to experience all of the different movements of film simultaneously. It would've been wonderful to experience the French New Wave or the 70's American re-invigoration as they were occurring, but with home video and local film society screenings, I get to experience all of them at once (i.e I saw Umberto D, Reservoir Dogs, Sunrise, Rules of the Game, The General, and The Adventures of Robin Hood all for the first time within the first few weeks of this year), which sometimes makes it more difficult to arrange them chronologically in my mind, which can make it a challenge to directly (or correctly for that matter) recognize influences/stylistic shifts, but it makes it easier to rank them (if necessary) more objectively on their own merits rather than based on their importance/impact on the medium.
My personal favorite 10, in order:
North by Northwest, Annie Hall, Citizen Kane, Rules of the Game, Duck Soup, Kicking and Screaming (Noah Baumbach one, not the Will Ferrell one, although that one is amusing too), Sunrise, Miller's Crossing, Quiz Show, The Passion of Joan of Arc
Jim, I think you've put it perfectly: "Concentrate on whatever you like (Japanese silent film, or Bollywood musicals), but at least be aware of what you're leaving out." This is also one of the reasons why old-white-male canonitis can be so harmful--it's not that the films themselves are bad (well, IMO sometimes they are), but rather its cultural uses as a club or a gavel. Sometimes it's just to win an argument with a 16-year-old on a movie discussion forum, but sometimes it's to help along the more politically destructive project of denying 'masterpiece' status to (say) great films from Senegal, India, Brazil, or great films from the avant-garde, or any field that the canon-maker regards as Other.
Because the people holding up canonical status, "the very best," whether more old-fashioned or newfangled, are often doing so as a substitute for--or bulwark against--seeing all kinds of things, new things that might shake a few preconceptions. Can I make a silly analogy? It's like insisting that the world's best beers are all conveniently to be found at your local grocery store (whatever a particular indivual's cinematic equivalent of a "grocery store" is)--a theoretical possibility, I suppose, but much more likely an expression of a person trying to solidify their comfort with what they're already got. It doesn't make buying beer at one's grocery store wrong. It doesn't mean that there aren't great beers in that store. It just means that there's a whole lot out there.
I've quoted it on the blogosphere before and I'll do it again--Olaf Möller has warned against cinephilia becoming a matter of "self-evident taste rather than scrupulous erudition." We should admit our blind spots and biases in good humor & good faith. (Sorry to take up so much space.)
Admit our blind spots? I don't have any......I don't think.
Great movies have been made recently, but it bothers me when I see a generation of film watchers whose favorite movies stop and start with a John Hughes' film. Love the man, some great movies, but isn't there a lot more to experience out there? Even if you don't like it more than "Some Kind of Wonderful", or "Resevoir Dogs" (which both have there roots, very specifically for "Dogs" in other much better films). A lot of the youth today don't have the patience to sit down and watch a foreign language film, or a silent film, or a black and white film for that matter. You hope that one day as the ADD of teenagehood wears off they expand a bit. The few people I managed to talk into finally watching something outside of their scope of "now" have been surprised by what I've shown them.
Well, I'm white but I'm sure not old (26). It's a funny thing because I often prefer the older films to the more recent ones and I once recited the AFI top 100 films list to a buddy of mine who stopped me after about the tenth film and said he didn't want to hear anymore. The reason? "All those movies are old."
I have the opposite opinion of some of the younger film lovers. While many might think of the older list as snobbery or nostalgia, I often see a kind of condescension towards older films by younger filmgoers. (Ever notice how the majority of people in the video store all cluster towards the new releases?)
Whenever I mention "Casablanca" or "Citizen Kane" or any other older movie to someone of my generation (or come to think of it, I could be talking to someone in their 40's as well) I usually get a patronizing smile or their eyes start glazing over. It's frustrating as hell, but what do you do?