100 Plus 10


Cross-posted on my blog, but I thought New Critics readers might be interetsed: Everyone is talking about the American Film Institute’s updated Top 100 list. I’m intrigued by these kinds of lists, in part because I think they do introduce important questions about taste and about our criteria for evaluating films, and while I don’t consider it part of my job as a film and media scholar to evaluate films (or, more precisely, rank them in a top 10 or top 100 list), I certainly do that implicitly whenever I teach an Introduction to Film class (as I do virtually every semester), and while I wouldn’t describe the films that I teach as the 15 best films ever made, I am certainly telling my students that these films are important and worth seeing. And I think we can learn something about the institutions of film studies and film appreciation have changed over the last decade as we continue to evaluate our cinematic past. Of course, I’m also fully aware that these lists will be used as marketing tools to sell DVDs of these films, but there are probably worse ways to spend $20 or so here and there.

Edward Copeland has the full Top 100 plus the original list and even tracks some of the biggest movers, and here on the Newcritics blog, M.A. Peel has a close analysis of the Top 10. A few observations about the lists (and the commentary about the lists) in no particular order:

  • Both Copeland and Ms. Peel point out the re-evaluation of Hitchcock’s Vertigo, which climbed from #61 in the original poll, all the way into the top 10. It’s not surprising to see several Hitchcock films on the list, but the re-evaluation of certain films is interesting. After teaching North by Northwest for so many years, I’ve grown to like it more than Vertigo, but both films certainly belong on the list. One guess as to why Vertigo made such a huge climb: the restored print of Vertigo that was produced in the mid-1990s.
  • Jim Emerson points out that Birth of a Nation completely dropped out of the Top 100 list (from #44). Good riddance. Films that endorse the Klan don’t belong on this kind of list, no matter how innovative narratively or technically. I can’t believe that the film was that highly ranked just ten years ago. Emerson also points out that The Searchers climbed from #96 all the way to #12, which appears to be the biggest leap of any film. On the Waterfront also tumbled pretty far. Could that be related to the renewed attention to Elia Kazan’s HUAC testimony?
  • Like Emerson, I would have liked seeing Lone Star among the top 100, but I have to disagree with him about Inland Empire, a film I’ve come to like less and less as I get distance from it. If any Lynch film belongs in the Top 100, it’s probably Mulholland Drive.
  • A few of my favorites are starting to climb into the top 100. Do the Right Thing finally made the list, albeit at #96, and Blade Runner squeezed in at #97. I think that both of these films will continue to look better with time, especially Do the Right Thing, which suffered early on because it was regarded as too controversial or confrontational or something (Joe Klein and Terence McNally famously feared that the film would spark riots).
  • I’m happy to see that Roger Ebert joined in the conversation, praising the list for including Buster Keaton this time around, while criticizing it for omitting Fargo (Emerson has the same complaint). I have to admit that I don’t have strong feelings either way for Fargo. It’s a well-made film, but most Coen brothers films feel a bit like an exercise to me.
  • I’ve skimmed the top 100 list several times, and unless I missed something, there’s not a single film directed by a woman listed. That’s probably not a big surprise given that only 4.5 of the 400 finalists were directed by women, but I’m looking forward to seeing the list complied by the Alliance of Women Film Journalists, which should come out in a few days. This observation is, of course, partially a critique of the tastemakers who make these lists, but I think it also says something about Hollywood’s history of hiring primarily male directors.
  • My list of snubs: The Conversation, His Girl Friday, 25th Hour, Dark City, Groundhog Day (I think Andy will agree with me on that one), and Medium Cool. I’d consider adding either Richard Linklater’s Dazed and Confused and I’d substitute Robert Altman’s Short Cuts for Nashville.
Possibly Related Classroom Projects From DonorsChoose.org Powered by Social Actions

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.

Information
June 21st, 2007
Comments
Feeds and Links
Comment Feed
From This Author
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Categories
Uncategorized

Other Posts
Fletcher Hanks: Comics and the Outsider Aesthetic
The Dum Dum Boys: “looked as if they put the whole world downâ€ÂÂ

Readers

Adverts

Liberal Prose

Featured book:


discussion by DISQUS

Add New Comment

Viewing 19 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Wow. Interesting commentary topped off by fightin' words. Short Cuts for Nashville! My mind is reeling. Dark City is another one whose reputation, at least among certain critics, confuses me. It's not bad, but...

    Still, I'd vote for The Conversation too. And I join you in celebrating Do the Right Thing. After seeing Inside Man I decided Lee's movies should be, when they're good, better appreciated than they are.
    • ^
    • v
    Dark City is probably borderline. I wrote about it a while back and really loved its noir meets si-fi genre mixing and its postmodern pastiche of allusions.

    Unfortunately, when I wrote this entry I hadn't had enough coffee, and I forgot what I regard as one of biggest exceptions: Julie Dash's Daughters of the Dust.
    • ^
    • v
    Chuck, am I alone in looking at this list of clasics and alleged classics and thinking, yeah, fine, but I really don't feel like watching most of these movies again in the near future or maybe even the far future. Maybe I've just seen them too often; and one thing about seeing movies more than once, you start noticing a steadily increasing number of things that are wrong with them. Movies are like people in that way. Or maybe I just need another cup of tea.
    • ^
    • v
    I don't think you're alone. There are a number of films on this list that I have no desire to see again, even if I think they're pretty good films. In fact, other than my favorite comfort movies, I rarely have any desire to see films more than once.

    And I won't speak for you, but like the Reeler, I sometimes look at these lists and simply want to yawn. Or something.
    • ^
    • v
    I know I'm one of the few dissenters on Fargo, but I don't think it ever belonged on the list. I loved the Coens' first four movies, but ever since I've been either disappointed or actually disliked what they put out. Admittedly though, their new one looks intriguing, as if they might be attempting something different.
    • ^
    • v
    Edward, yes, I'll be curious to see how they adapt the Cormac McCarthy novel, and the trailer looks intriguing. I remeber liking Fargo well enough at the time, but I'll take Raising Arizona or Blood Simple over it any day.
    • ^
    • v
    Chuck, thank you, and the Reeler, for assuring me that I am not alone. While I was doing my errands I was thinking about why I have no desire to bask once again in the glories of so many of these cinematic masterpieces, and I was thinking that besides the been-there-too-many-times syndrome (when so often once was plenty), so many of these movies are just too well-meaning, too sentimental, too nice and too obvious.
    • ^
    • v
    I'm with Dan on this one. This is like those Rolling Stone lists they wheel out every decade or so to make sure everyone knows their "blue-ribbon" panel is resting comfortably. Great to know that they find Toy Story, Forrest Gump, The Shawshank Redemption and oh, name any other of the 20 or 30 middlebrow diversions more memorable than
    Mulholland Drive. Hope their CBS tie-in got the applicable ratings.
    • ^
    • v
    Sean and Dan, there are some mediocre choices in the top 100 (including all of the examples named by Sean), but those examples are so unremarkable--they show up on every list--that I decided to ignore them this time around.

    But in general, I agree that this list making activity is problematic on any number of levels.
    • ^
    • v
    Hey what's wrong with middlebrow? Casablanca is middlebrow, all of Hitchcock is middlebrow, Gone With the Wind aspires to middlebrowdom.
    • ^
    • v
    Middlebrow and mediocre aren't quite the same, at least in my reading. I could watch Casablanca or NxNW again. But even thinking about Forrest Gump gives me a headache!
    • ^
    • v
    Y'know, there is nothing at all wrong with middlebrow (although as Chuck wisely points out, there is something wrong with mediocre) but let's face it, just about every movie on this list is middlebrow. Movies are basically a low-to-middlebrow art form. Flmmakers whose work I might call highbrow, like Bergman or Antonioni -- whose work is as demanding but potentially as rewarding as that of James Joyce or Proust or Samuel Beckett -- are very rare. I wouldn't call "The Seven Samurai" highbrow, but that doesn't mean it's not great. And we've all seen highbrow work that sucks donkey dick. In fact it's usually a good bet that if Hollywood attempts something highbrow it's going to turn out middlebrow and bad.
    • ^
    • v
    Hey what’s wrong with middlebrow? Most of my favorite entertainment has one brow raised.
    • ^
    • v
    ...we’ve all seen highbrow work that sucks donkey dick

    OK, that's quote of the week.

    It's true though - this list is about mass audiences. These movies were seen by many millions. Art-house flicks, not so much. This is a list of the best popular flicks...by men....in the USA...seen by millions...of all time.
    • ^
    • v
    These lists are always fun for the discussions they sprak. But I do get irked at how safe and boring the AFI choices continue to be. No Lang, no Lubitsch. Epics, Oscar-winners, adventure stories, some comedies, some musicals (but nothing too fey), crime dramas (but nothing too dark or sleazy). And MALE. God is it male. And I am not talking about the directors. So few women's pictures, so little of anything that doesn't appeal to a very straight he-man sensibility.

    I posted more objections at my place too.
    • ^
    • v
    Yeah, there's some really average stuff on the list and a few clunkers, like Forrest Gump, as mentioned above. That movie is so bad it calls the validity of the whole list into question.

    To name a favorite movie of mine, not on the list: John Huston's final film, The Dead. I need only run through the list of 100 and ask myself how they stack up against Huston's movie. Many of the 100 suffer greatly from the comparison.
    • ^
    • v
    Wondering if The Dead was excluded because it was considered too British. That's why The Third Man, one of my personal faves, was taken off the list.
    • ^
    • v
    I very much enjoyed The Dead, but put off seeing it for a long, long time. I knew Huston's work would be evocative and that I'd always "see" his vision - and my own personal version - when I re-read the story, which is one of my favorites. And I was right.
    • ^
    • v
    I suppose this is as good a spot as any to make some general comments. Like - the dividing by zero moment on the 97 list was been rectified - The General is on the list. And Nashville, and Astaire and Rogers, and Sturges - all pretty much required. On the other hand - still only one Howard Hawks film? His Girl Friday being an obvious candidate, but so is The Big Sleep, Scarface, Red River, and god knows how many others. And Frankenstein dropping off is almost as bad as not having Keaton last time. The Third Man is more American than Lawrence of Arabia - that can't be the excuse can it?
blog comments powered by Disqus