Pick only one Sight and Sound Top Ten Poll.

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
This is a little experiment. I'm wondering which of the six Top Ten Critics' Polls conducted by Sight and Sound since 1952, is most sympathetic to you. I'm also curious what you think about this particular poll as a gauge of shifting trends in film appreciation--specifics, please.

amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 2 May 2003 16:00 (twenty-two years ago)


Here they are, for reference:

1952
1. Bicycle Thieves (De Sica) 1949 - 25
2. City Lights (Chaplin) 1930 - 19
3. The Gold Rush (Chaplin) 1925 - 19
4. Battleship Potemkin (Eisenstein) 1925 - 16
5. Intolerance (Griffith) 1916 - 12
Louisiana Story (Flaherty) 1947 - 12
7. Greed (Von Stroheim) 1924 - 11
Le Jour se leve (Carne) 1939 - 11
The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer) 1928 - 11
10. Brief Encounter (Lean) 1945 - 10
Le Million (Clair) 1930 - 10
La Regle du jeu (Renoir) 1939 - 10


1962
1. Citizen Kane (Welles) 1941 - 22
2. L'avventura (Antonioni) 1960 - 20
3. La Regle du jeu (Renoir) 1939 - 19
4. Greed (Stoheim) 1924 - 17
Ugetsu Monogatari (Mizogichi) 1953 - 17
6. Battleship Potemkin (Eisenstein) 1925 - 16
Bicycle Thieves (De Sica) 1949 - 16
Ivan the Terrible (Eisenstein) 1943-46 - 16
9. La Terra trema (Visconti) 1948 - 14
10. L'Atalante (Vigo) 1934 - 13


1972
1. Citizen Kane (Welles) 1941 - 32
2. La Regle du jeu (Renoir) 1939 - 28
3. Battleship Potemkin (Eisenstein) 1925 - 16
4. 8½ (Fellini) 1963 - 15
5. L'avventura (Antonioni) 1960 - 12
Persona (Bergman) 1967 - 12
7. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer) 1928 - 11
8. The General (Keaton/Bruckman) 1927 - 10
The Magnifficent Ambersons (Welles) 1942 - 10
10. Ugetsu Monogatari (Mizogichi) 1953 - 9
Wild Strawberries (Bergman) 1957 - 9


1982
1. Citizen Kane (Welles) 1941 - 45
2. La Regle du jeu (Renoir) 1939 - 31
3. Seven Samurai (Kurosawa) 1954 - 15
Singin' in the Rain (Donen/Kelly) 1952 - 15
5. 8½ (Fellini) 1963 - 14
6. Battleship Potemkin (Eisenstein) 1925 - 13
7. L'avventura (Antonioni) 1960 - 12
The Magnifficent Ambersons (Welles) 1942 - 12
Vertigo (Hitchcock) 1958 - 12
10. The General (Keaton/Bruckman) 1927 - 11
The Searchers (Ford) 1956 - 11


1992
1. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941) - 43
2. La Regle du jeu (Renoir, 1939) - 32
3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953) - 22
4. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958) - 18
5. The Searchers (Ford, 1956) - 17
6. L'Atalante (Vigo, 1934) - 15
The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1928) - 15
Pather Panchali (Ray, 1955) - 15
Battleship Potemkin (Eisenstein, 1925) - 15
10. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968) - 14


2002
1. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941) - 46
2. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958) - 41
3. La Regle du jeu (Renoir, 1939) - 30
4. The Godfather and The Godfather Part II (Coppola, 1972, 1974) - 23
5. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953) - 22
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968) - 21
7. Battleship Potemkin (Eisenstein, 1925) - 19
Sunrise (Murnau, 1927) - 19
9. 8½ (Fellini, 1963) - 18
10. Singin' in the Rain (Kelly, Donen, 1951) - 17

amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 2 May 2003 16:00 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd be very curious to know which critics were polled for each decade. I suspect that the earlier polls had much smaller voting pools, and were probably more Anglo-American in character. An interesting statistic to compile--something beyond my ken--would be to see how many of the critics polled voted for how many of the films that ended up in the top 10. That is, what kind of consensus is this?

I have to admit a fondness for the 1952 poll. I'm sure to the Cahiers generation some of its choices seem stultifyingly obvious, but given the dominance of auterist criticism over the past 50 years, and the elevation of certain figures and movements at the expense of others, it's heartening to see examples of poetic realism, the early sound musical, neorealism, documentary film, and the "tradition of quality" on the list.

amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 2 May 2003 16:06 (twenty-two years ago)

I know critics have made this point before, but I'm interested in the fact that the first three polls were so willing to canonize recent films, whereas the last three polls seem allergic to that idea. One way to take this is that pre-1970 films were simply better. Another way is that the critics in the early polls were so excited about the new European films and felt they genuinely represented a progression in cinema, beyond anything that had been done before. And then there's also the case that those early critics were, in fact, the canon makers, so they didn't have the pressure of earlier canons weighing upon them, as recent critics do.

jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 2 May 2003 16:19 (twenty-two years ago)

(I think that's why I like the 1952 poll, too: it represents one of the first attempts at a canon, so you get the impression these critics are going, "Wow, we've gotta include Eisenstein! And then what about Chaplin!" -- rather than, "Yeah, yeah, Eisenstein, Chaplin, throw in Citizen Kane and call it a day.")

jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 2 May 2003 16:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Well Antonioni's L'avventura is the one and only (albeit important) sign of the ascendance of the new European art cinema in the 1962 list. Ugetsu represents the sudden appearance of Japanese films of the Western critics' map (note that interest in Ozu would not really take off until 20 years later). And I have to think that Greed benefitted from the sudden leap in the prestige of Citizen Kane, Stroheim being something of a proto-Welles figure.

I wouldn't make too much of the appearance and disappearance of various silent films since 1962, since the ones that made it one year, were probably bubbling just under the top 10 the next. The exception I think is Sunrise--for whatever reason, the 1990s saw a big leap in that film's exposure and appreciation.

But: Where did Chaplin go anyway? He disappears completely from the top tens after his strong placing in the 1952 list. I wonder if the strong hold his larger-than-life personality had on filmmakers of several generations had worn off by the 1960s. Or perhaps younger critics simply were tired of hearing older critics intone "Chaplin is God" without justifying that enthusiasm, as seemed to happen to often. (Chaplin-philia reaches really dizzying heights if you read pre-1950s criticism. After a certain point--say The Kid, or A Woman of Paris--he seems to have been taken for granted as the genius of the cinema, alongside Griffith.)

amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 2 May 2003 16:29 (twenty-two years ago)

i like most of the ILF Introduce Yrself lists better than these, but if we tabulated those together the results might be just as dull (except vertigo would beat out kane hurrah) (but so might donnie darko hmmm)

(gleaned that from this thread, which gave S&S polls the once-over too)

jones (actual), Friday, 2 May 2003 16:59 (twenty-two years ago)

chaplin nudged out during re-evaluation of keaton i'd guess, tho why exactly i dunno

jones (actual), Friday, 2 May 2003 17:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah the whole Keaton/Chaplin thing epitomizes the false dichotomy. My otherwise-wonderful film professor couldn't praise Keaton without taking a dig at Chaplin.

amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 2 May 2003 17:06 (twenty-two years ago)

even though i like, even love, most of the films, the 2002 list really sucks. but i cant exactly say why. it just seem superfluous as soon as it was published.

the 1952 list is wonderful, but some combination of the 72 and 02 lists would probably suit me best. I have a weakness (can you call it that?) for the art-house european stuff. there was some real wacky shit in the 2002 list if you look farther down tho, and The Searchers really should be in the top ten, even I wouldn't personally vote for it.

ryan (ryan), Friday, 2 May 2003 17:32 (twenty-two years ago)

even though I wouldn't personally vote for it

ryan (ryan), Friday, 2 May 2003 17:33 (twenty-two years ago)

this got said on the ile thread abt the 2002 S&S poll, but one factor in the stabilisation of the classics-as-canon is surely the introduction of Film Studies as a college course and career ingredient for future critics and future directors: what gets studied is — almost inevitably — a codified redux of the past, and what gets cited in polls like this can't find a way to escape that

mark s (mark s), Friday, 2 May 2003 19:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, I don't think Film Studies, being such a huge behemoth now, is as susceptible to these massive paradigm shifts. The increasingly availability of world cinema on video (despite huge gaps) probably contibutes to an overall "lack of surprise" too. I mean, in the mid-1950s a few Japanese films at Cannes and Venice can inspire Bazin to extemporize on the long take, which in turn recasts the understanding of film history for a whole generation of buffs.

amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 2 May 2003 20:00 (twenty-two years ago)

I lied earlier: Wild Strawberries is the other example of the new European art cinema on the 1962 list. Speaking of: I wonder if Sjostrom's Phantom Chariot or The Wind might have made such a list in 1932 or 1942, say. Certainly Delluc (majorly influential prewar film critic) loved his work.

amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 2 May 2003 20:24 (twenty-two years ago)

what kind of consensus is this?

Found this online:

1992
1. Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941)..........................43
2. La Regle du Jeu (Jean Renoir, 1939)........................32
3. Tokyo Story (Yasujiro Ozu, 1953)...........................22
4. Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958)...........................18
5. The Searchers (John Ford, 1956)............................17
6. L'Atalante (Jean Vigo, 1934)...............................15
The Passion of Joan of Arc (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1928).....15
Pather Panchali (Satyajit Ray, 1955).......................15
Battleship Potemkin (Sergei Eisenstein, 1925)..............15
10. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)..............14

Directors:
1. Orson Welles...............................................58
2. Jean Renoir................................................50
3. Jean-Luc Godard............................................42
4. Alfred Hitchcock...........................................39
5. Charles Chaplin............................................36
6. John Ford..................................................34
7. Satyajit Ray...............................................32
8. Yasujiro Ozu...............................................30
9. Carl Theodor Dreyer........................................29
10. Sergei Eisenstein..........................................26

You can see every poll up to 1992 here: http://www.cinepad.com/awards/ss.htm

ryan (ryan), Friday, 2 May 2003 20:26 (twenty-two years ago)

funny how Vertigo has really taken off. if i recall correctly it was not far behind Citizen Kane at all in 2002.

The top ten at http://www.sensesofcinema.com/ is always interesting to compare:

1. Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958) 66
2. Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941) 37
3. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968) 35
4. Sunrise (F. W. Murnau, 1927) 27
5. La Règle du Jeu (Jean Renoir, 1939) 26
6. The Searchers (John Ford, 1956) 25
The Thin Red Line (Terrence Malick, 1998) 25
8. Seven Samurai (Akira Kurosawa, 1954) 24
9. Tokyo Story (Yasujiro Ozu, 1953) 23
10. Au Hasard, Balthazar (Robert Bresson, 1966) 22

ryan (ryan), Friday, 2 May 2003 20:30 (twenty-two years ago)

I think Vertigo was something like eight votes behind Kane.

slutsky (slutsky), Friday, 2 May 2003 20:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Vertigo benefitted from two restorations and rereleases: one in the 1980s and one in the 1990s. Also the feminist/Freudian wing of film studies has of course had a field day with that and other Hitchcock pictures of the 1950s.

Most of the shifts in the canon as reflected in the S&S polls can be traced to specific shifts in film studies, in distribution, etc. I think that's the most interesting aspect of all. Especially since the polls and the individual ballots have this cover of GREATEST OF ALL TIME when in reality there are all kinds of crazy contingencies and pressures that are rarely acknowledged.

I'm happy to see The Thin Red Line on that last list--kind of a rebuke to the anarchonistic quality of the S&S poll. Also nice to see Balthazar, a film that has so far gone undistributed in the USA, though Rialto (bless their hearts) are about to change that.

amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 2 May 2003 20:34 (twenty-two years ago)

though Rialto (bless their hearts) are about to change that.

yay! now only if Sunrise was more easily available.

ryan (ryan), Friday, 2 May 2003 20:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Check it out: they're distributing Mouchette, too.

amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 2 May 2003 20:37 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd pick the 2002 list because of the inclusion of The Godfather. I think many of these critics think with their heads and not with their hearts. Not to mention that most critics are flakes and liars who would never dare admit what they REALLY wanted to vote for.

PVC (peeveecee), Friday, 2 May 2003 20:48 (twenty-two years ago)

The recent sight and sound directors poll was much more interesting and insightful.

http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/list.php?list=voters&votertype=director

Many of their choices seem more honest, still some come off like shameless liars -- Joel Schumaker perhaps.

PVC (peeveecee), Friday, 2 May 2003 20:52 (twenty-two years ago)

i take it back about Schumakers list... I must have been thinking of some one else.

PVC (peeveecee), Friday, 2 May 2003 20:55 (twenty-two years ago)

(the directors' poll was done at exactly the same time as the critics' poll: i think the idea that one group are fronting it and the other group isn't is quite funny)

mark s (mark s), Friday, 2 May 2003 20:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Schumacher's List, now there's a movie I'd like to see

slutsky (slutsky), Friday, 2 May 2003 21:01 (twenty-two years ago)

well everybody in the entertainment industry is full of shit on some level.

PVC (peeveecee), Friday, 2 May 2003 21:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Schumacher shoudln't even be allowed to vote because of Batman&Robin. It negates his opinion.

PVC (peeveecee), Friday, 2 May 2003 21:03 (twenty-two years ago)

I think many of these critics think with their heads and not with their hearts.

I don't think one is any less honest a standard of quality than the other.

ryan (ryan), Friday, 2 May 2003 21:03 (twenty-two years ago)

pvc the thread i linked to above is about that poll i think (i thought schumacher's potemkin nod was a bit rich myself, but what do i know)

also note: this board frequented by some very sharp minds in the crit-dept - mind p's &q's on the sweeping bashes

jones (actual), Friday, 2 May 2003 21:13 (twenty-two years ago)

it's not a less honest standard of quality i agree. but I feel it's less interesting. because logic inevitably brings about many of the same films while emotion throws in the wild cards.

PVC (peeveecee), Friday, 2 May 2003 21:13 (twenty-two years ago)

well obviously I wasn't talking about them. lol.

PVC (peeveecee), Friday, 2 May 2003 21:15 (twenty-two years ago)

A lot of contemporary filmmakers attended film school and can spout jargon, or regurgitate conventional wisdom, better than any of the professional critics.

Now I adore his films but read Michael Mann's ballot and you will see bullshit on nearly unprecedented levels. I don't doubt his honesty in making his choices but his way of justifying them reeks of totally calcified, unchallenged soundbites half-remembered from survey courses.

amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 2 May 2003 21:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Michael Mann ballot:

Apocalypse Now (Coppola)
Coppola made the ephemeral dynamics of the mass psyche's celebratory nihilism, its self-destructive urges and transience, concrete and operatic. A fabulous picture.
Battleship Potemkin (Eisenstein)
Eisenstein invented not just film form, but a dialectical theory of the construction of cinematic narrative. He laid the theoretical foundation in 1924 and embodied it in cinema's greatest classic. Its influence in British, Weimar and American cinema is extraordinary.
Citizen Kane (Welles)
A watershed that perceives and expresses content in a grand way, never done before.
Dr. Strangelove (Kubrick)
The whole picture is a third act. It codifies and presents as outrageous satire the totality of American foreign and nuclear policy and political/military culture from 1948 to 1964. And it's more effective for being wicked ridicule than any number of cautionary fables.
Faust (Murnau)
Invented what had never been done before and delivered magic in both its human pathos and visual effects. (My selection is based on having viewed an excellent 35mm print.)
Last Year at Marienbad (Resnais)
A defining film. It's almost the end of modernism when counterposed against Godard.
My Darling Clementine (Ford)
Possibly the finest drama in the classic Western genre, with a stunningly subjective Wyatt Earp (Henry Fonda). And it achieves near-perfection as cinematic narrative in its editing and shooting.
The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer)
Human experience conveyed out of the abstract elements of the human face and pure compositions. No one else has shot and realised human beings quite like Dreyer in this film.
Raging Bull (Scorsese)
We are so sucked into the failing and besotted life of La Motta and his need for and pursuit of redemption. The humanity of the picture is as extraordinary as Marty's execution, with its near-perfection in the economy, staging, blocking and compositions.
The Wild Bunch (Peckinpah)
No other picture captures the poignancy of 'the last of', a fin-de-siècle sense of the West, of ageing, of the pathos of twilight.

amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 2 May 2003 21:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Cameron Crowe included Quadrophenia - nice.

George Romero's list is pretty good:

If I were to attempt selections based on content or craftsmanship, I'd be intellectualising. I'd probably sound phoney, and I would no doubt include
one or two of my own films which, intellectually, I believe to be works of genius. I prefer to think of top ten as meaning favourite. When I'm condemned to hell - a good bet - I'll probably drag along a sack full of DVDs. When Charon says, "You can only bring ten. Feed the rest to Cerberus," which ten will I pick? To last me an eternity?
The Brothers Karamazov (Brooks)
Nobody is going to agree with me on this one. It's corny, it's Hollywood. But it's got The Yul. It's got Lee J., Baseheart, Salmi. It's got foxy Claire Bloom. It's even got Captain Kirk! And Maria Schell. Wow! She does a dance in a tavern, fully clothed, which might be the sexiest dance ever recorded. What can I tell you, the music makes me cry. And so does David Opatoshu.
Casablanca (Curtiz)
Those wonderful airplanes, wonderful hats, a wonderful gin joint. All wrapped up in one of the greatest flicks of all time.
Dr. Strangelove (Kubrick)
I wish I could pick all of Kubrick. I know, intellectually, that he's done 'better work', but Strangelove cracks me up. Lolita runs a close second, but having grown up in the days of 'duck and cover', in a perverse way I do love the Bomb. I also figure that when I'm in the ovens Sue Lyon won't be much of a turn-on any more, Shelly Winters will only make my pain worse, and I can get my Peter Sellers fix from Strangelove.
High Noon (Zinnemann)
How can anyone get through an eternity without ever again seeing a Western? Having grown up with Hopalong, I love Westerns, and I have a lot of faves... You might ask, "How can I pick a Western that doesn't star The Duke?" Well, I have The Duke covered (see below). But High Noon has Princess Grace and it has The Coop! I can't go to my damnation without The Coop.
King Solomon's Mines (Bennett)
Here's another one that will make the entire staff at the entertainment desk of Village Voice snicker. Come on, guys. I'm already going to hell! Let me enjoy myself, will ya? I grew up at the Loews American in the Bronx. Aside from 'forbiddens' like The Blackboard Jungle and (gasp) God's Little Acre, the most provocative glimpses of 'adult behaviour' we ever laid eyes on came to us from the grand Hollywood spectacles our parents took us to see because they believed them to be 'safe'.
North by Northwest (Hitchcock)
Faced with eternal damnation, I figure I'm going to want some fun. Maybe Cary, in that cornfield, will make my hell seem a bit less hellish.
The Quiet Man (Ford)
I was raised a Catholic, so it might be this film has an extra tug on me. But as I watch it, even in my now-corrupted state, each time I fall more in love with it.
Repulsion (Polanski)
We're now in what is thought of as my 'zone' - the horror film. Many wouldn't place Repulsion in this category, but I do. Is Jaws a horror film? Is The Silence of the Lambs? Yes. And they've elevated the genre. But hey, man, we're talkin' Roman here! You want scary. Take it from a scary guy. Go watch Repulsion.
Touch of Evil (Welles)
Faced with hell, who needs Citizen Kane? I'd take Touch of Evil any day of the eternity. Not the 'restored' version. Bring on Mancini!
The Tales of Hoffmann (Powell, Pressburger)
This is one notch out of alphabetical order, but I decided to give it the status of last position because it's my favourite film of all time; the movie that made me want to make movies.

miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Saturday, 3 May 2003 00:38 (twenty-two years ago)

two weeks pass...
I like David Siegel's 2002 list

gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 18 May 2003 21:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Obviously, Joel David's is the most transgressive and, thereby, the most interesting of the lot.

On the other hand, Jonathan Rosenbaum's is just about pitch perfect in a more traditional way.

Eric H. (Eric H.), Monday, 19 May 2003 01:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Check out Anurag Mehta's list:

Star Wars (Lucas)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (Spielberg)
Rocky (Avildsen)
Jaws (Spielberg)
Forrest Gump (Zemeckis)
Superman (Donner)
Jerry Maguire (Crowe)
Casablanca (Curtiz)
Back to the Future (Zemeckis)
Pulp Fiction (Tarantino)

By being completely mundane, he's being iconoclastic - nobody else voted for Raiders of the Lost Ark, Rocky, Forrest Gump, Superman, Jerry Maguire, and (!!) Back to the Future.

Ernest P. (ernestp), Monday, 19 May 2003 01:40 (twenty-two years ago)

That's very unmundane in the context of S&S. Also crap.

Here's the top 119 from the 1992 poll - a pretty good canon.

Don't know if anyone's done anything similar for the latest one. I did my own mini-poll consisting of everyone who voted for a Renoir film (because there's no excuse for failing to do so); unfortunately the drive I put it on died. But it was a great canon.

b.R.A.d. (Brad), Monday, 19 May 2003 02:38 (twenty-two years ago)

one year passes...
bazin must be the most influential critic figure in film history. one can attribute the ascendance of "citizen kane" to his writing--also the ascendance of "greed." he is probably also the critical figure in rehabilitating renoir. it's good to remember that certain canonical figures were figures of considerable debate at one point.

does anyone know when the restoration (the one we have today) of "rules of the game" was exactly? the mid-50s? i guess those who voted for it prior to the 1952 poll were largely going on their memories of the film's brief french release of 1939-40.

amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 21:02 (twenty-one years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.