OK, as long as the simultaneous deaths of Ingmar Bergman and Michelangelo Antonioni have shaken the foundations of the pantheon and got us debating canons -- again: Near the end of the last millennium, I decided to do something difficult and convoluted and thoroughly silly. On this particular occasion I determined to figure out which 100 movies were the most highly regarded at the close of the century. I think this was in late 1998 or early 1999. But more recent films wouldn't have registered very high anyway, because I was using a larger historical sampling to compile the results.
I came up with some complex point scale for rating the movies by the awards and honors they had received, using a mixture of domestic and international, popular and critical sources. I no longer have any recollection of the formula I used, but I'm sure it was at least as complicated as the one for Coca-Cola. I know (given my personal bent) that I weighted, for example, the "Sight & Sound" international critics' poll more highly than, say, the Oscars. And I tried to find a mathematical way to properly consider and weigh American with non-English-language films (given the restrictions and biases of some sources), and older films with newer ones. The sources I used were (in no particular order): Academy Awards, "Sight & Sound" polls (1952, '62, '72, '82, '92), the first AFI 100 list, the National Film Registry (American films selected for preservation in the Library of Congress -- which had to be at least 10 years old), the Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards (1975 - ), the New York Film Critics Circle (1935 - ), and the National Society of Film Critics (1966 - ).
Although it seems inconceivable to me now, I actually put together several charts (spreadsheets!), so you could view the lists and the movies' individual honors, not only by rank, but by director, title (alphabetically), year/decade, -- and a comprehensive list of the 400+ titles that came under consideration, given my sources.
I doubt -- and I hope -- I will never be that anal again. But what I liked about the results was that they reflected a mix of "art films" ("The Passion of Joan of Arc," "Bicycle Thieves"), silents ("Greed," "Intolerance," "The Gold Rush") and popular titles ("West Side Story," "Annie Hall," "Schindler's List"). I was also pleased with the distribution over the decades, a little more balanced than you usually see in polls: two films from the 1910s; six from the '20s; 19 from the '30s; 16 from the '40s; 29 from the '50s; 19 from the '60s; 21 from the '70s; 13 from the '80s; and 14 from the '90s (which weren't quite over yet).
Point of interest: Bergman had three films on the list: "Persona" (22), "Wild Strawberries" (66), and "Fanny and Alexander" (84). Antonioni had one: "L'Avventura" (8).
Welles and Chaplin each had two films in the top 25. Other directors represented in the upper quarter include: Jean Renoir, Alfred Hitchcock, Federico Fellini, Sergei Eisenstein, Stanley Donen, Steven Spielberg, John Ford, Stanley Kubrick, Vittorio de Sica, Woody Allen, Erich von Stroheim, Elia Kazan, Carl Theodor Dreyer, Joseph L. Mankiewicz, Robert Wise, D.W. Griffith, Jean Vigo, and Michael Curtiz.
The Big List begins like this:
1 "Citizen Kane"
2 "Rules of the Game"
3 "Vertigo"
4 "8 1/2"
"Battleship Potemkin"
6 "Singin' in the Rain"
7 "The Gold Rush"
8 "City Lights"
"L'Avventura"
10 "Schindler's List"
11 "The Searchers"
12 "2001: A Space Odyssey"
13 "The Bicycle Thief" (aka "Bicycle Thieves")
14 "Annie Hall"
15 "Greed"
16 "On the Waterfront"
17 "The Passion of Joan of Arc"
18 "All About Eve"
19 "The Magnificent Ambersons"
20 "The Best Years of Our Lives"
21 "West Side Story"
22 "Intolerance"
"L'Atlante"
"Persona"
25 "Casablanca"
Correction: Bergman has three on the list. You missed "Fanny and Alexander" at 84.
It's great to see that Hitchcock has more films on it than anyone. In a way he's overlooked as a great director. A few of my friends have had 3 or 4 of his films on their "best" list but never mention him as a favorite director. Chaplin also gets his due as a director, finally. It's a shame to see only one Woody Allen film on the list.
Pretty solid list...and of course utterly meaningless. It's a good place to start though in going through some of the essential films.
With all these lists of greatest this and best that, I've found the most useful one to be the one assembled by editor Steven J. Schneider and dozens of critics into a guide book called "1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die". Threatening title aside, it provides a comprehensive list of many of the essential films throughout history, with no particular preference given to genre, time period or director. I'm sure there are some titles on it I don't consider must-see material ("Ghost"?), but for the most part, it provides a nice guide to the buffet that is film history.
You are aware that They Shoot Pictures, Don't They? does exactly this sort of thing, yes?
(theyshootpictures.com.)
I read these lists and keep being reminded that (a) I still haven't seen The Magnificent Ambersons and (b) The Stranger is desperately underrated, for reasons I have never quite grasped.
I think combining lists is an excellent idea. I suggested the other day on SLIFR that a english-language list be compiled and then a foreign list and then combine the total votes of both onto one list for a more even distribution.
About a month ago I wrote a piece on the Sight and Sound poll and (a bit anal-like) went to the trouble to combine the critic's results with the director's results and the final list I think was slightly better than either individual list (although because of the director's preferences for mainstream Hollywood, films like POTEMKIN dropped down overall).
And I think I e-mailed you about your list already but I just wanted to say again that I found your submission to the Sight and Sound poll to be an excellent, quite well-rounded selection.
Jonathan
DVC: Oops. Thanks for the CX.
Goat: I did not know that. Like I said, I did this one eight or nine years ago, and just dredged it up again.
Jonathan: I do believe there's a group of movie bloggers who are planning to do just what you suggest!
That's good news (combining separate English and Foreign lists into one). I'd love to take part. Jonathan Burdick at Cinema Fusion told me a couple of weeks ago they had a few more list projects lined up and were still working out details. Maybe this is one of them.
Interesting experiment, I couldn't see myself doing anything of that scale... especially if math were involved as it so clearly is. There aren't many surprises (not that there is much room for any), but it's interesting to see the high ranking of The Magnificent Ambersons, which I didn't expect to make the list let alone be so high. Not that I'm dissapointed as it's one of my favourites. Another surprise is the Louisiana Story, I didn't even know it off hand.
First, I always find it fascinating to see compilations like this, and I too have muddled about for days on end running numbers like this so you're not the only one who is that anal. So I think this is a great list for discussion.
However, I think what I like _less_ about the list is precisely what you say you liked more - that it is more "balanced." By averaging out all the results, you get average results. Consensus only breeds mediocrity, or at least more consensus. Or however you want to put it.
That's why I get a lot more value out of individual lists than these combined results. Precisely because they are NOT balanced, and because you see more idiosyncratic picks that would never slip through the cracks if you average everything out. My own list isn't balanced. Heck, more than 20% of my personal Top 100 goes to Bresson, Herzog, Kubrick, and Godard alone. And I have far more films from the 60s and 70s than any other two decades, and it's not even close.
It's like the year end Film Comment poll. I find the summary results produce pretty staid and uninteresting results, but reading each critic's list can sometimes be revelatory.
And the Sight&Sound poll website is indispensable not for its summarized results, but because you can click on each voter's list. I mean, look at John Waters' list. Is this man a true gem or what?
Hey Chris could you post a link to that John Waters list?
Chris L, I absolutely agree with you. I've become so aware of the relentlessly canonized group of "Citizen Kane," "Vertigo," "Rules of the Game," etc. that when I read them in lists, I just think "Yeah, what else is new?" However, when I spy something interesting, like if Jim Hoberman talks about "Shoah" or "Two Or Three Things I Know About Her," I learn more and actually expand my consideration of "the best films ever" to possibly include them. I admire eccentricities. I suppose the lists begin to seem dull after being perused so many times. I can't imagine what it would be like to see the Sight & Sound poll for the first time and be like "Damn, I haven't seen ANY of these." I remember that moment. It was great. Whenever there are deeply personal, unique lists, I still get that wonderful anticipatory feeling.
I find it very strange, and difficult to believe, that Carne is represented here by Le Jour se Leve (which I've scarcely even heard of) rather than Children of Paradise, and Visconti by La Terra Trema (again, never heard of it) instead of... well, pretty much any other movie of his (especially The Leopard).
Rich,
Here's a link to all the Sight & Sound results. You can click by film title, directors, and individual voters (both critics and directors). Warning: it will probably suck up all your free time for the next few days.
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/list.php?list=films
Robert: That does seem odd, but it's probably because Carne's "Les Enfants du Paradis" has never appeared in the top ten of the "Sight and Sound" poll, but "Le Jour se leve" was #7 in 1952. Likewise with "The Leopard," which has never made the top 10, though "La Terra Trema" was #9 in 1952.
In the most recent (2002) poll, only six critics voted for "Children of Paradise" and no Visconti films got more than 3 votes.
Ahh, I remember the old cinepad.com list. Good times.
At the time, your list was the best Top 100 list out there because of its multiple sources and simple layout. They Shoot Pictures, Don't They has since surpassed it (no offense), but I wonder where they got the idea from? ;-)
Here's the Top 10 from their site:
1. Citizen Kane
2. The Rules of the Game
3. Vertigo
4. 2001: A Space Odyssey
5. 8 1/2
6. The Seven Samurai
7. The Godfather
8. Tokyo Story
9. The Searchers
10. Singin' in the Rain
Kurosawa only at 43rd place and only with one film (seven samurai) at the top 100?
That strange. I thought Rashomon was an exceptionally accepted film in every critical circle.
Hello guys
Wasjust serfing on net and found this site...want to say thanks. Great site and content!
I disagree that Star Wars is one of the most critically acclaimed films of all time because in order to earn that title it has to win over Andrew Sarris,Stanley Kauffman or Judith Crist.
Well,The list mentioned is overall ok..although in my personal opinion City Lights and Gold Rush have dated very much..I would have preferred Buster Keaton 's The General or Harold Lioyd's Safety Last..Same goes for On The Waterfront..I would have thought Coppolas's Apocalypse Now or Dreyer's Ordet deserves a place instead....These are much more higher artistically..And also the list has left out Yaziro Ozu's Tokyo Story,which,in every critical polling,gets in the Top 10....Think about it...