A Cinema Canon for the Ages

1896. LEAVING JERUSALEM (Lumiere)
1900. AS SEEN THROUGH A TELESCOPE (George A. Smith)
------- THE ONE-MAN BAND (Georges Melies)
1902. A TRIP TO THE MOON (Melies)
1903. THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY (Edwin S. Porter)
1906.THE MERRY FROLICS OF SATAN (melies)
1907. THE GOLDEN BEETLE (Segundo de Chomón)
1909. A CORNER IN WHEAT (D.W. Griffith)
------ A DRUNKARD'S REFORMATION (Griffith)
------ PRINCESS NICOTINE (J. Stuart Blackton)
1913. SUSPENSE (Lois Weber)
------ THE CHILD OF PARIS (Perret)
1915. LES VAMPIRES (Feuillade)
1916. HELL'S HINGES (Hart/Swickard)
-------INTOLERANCE (Griffith)
------ THE MYSTERY OF THE LEAPING FISH (John Emerson)
1917---THE IMMIGRANT (Chaplin)
1919. BROKEN BLOSSOMS (Griffith)
1920. CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI (Weine)
-------THE PARSON'S WIDOW (Dreyer)
-------WAY DOWN EAST (Griffith)
1921. ORPHANS OF THE STORM (Griffith)
------- THE KID (Chaplin)
--------THE PHANTOM CARRIAGE (Sjostrom)
1922. FOOLISH WIVES (Von Stroheim)
-------NANOOK OF THE NORTH (Flaherty)
-------NOSFERATU (Murnau)
1923. LA ROUE (Gance)
1924. THE LAST LAUGH (Murnau)
-------NIBELUNGEN (Lang)
-------SHERLOCK JR. (Keaton)
1925. THE BIG PARADE (Vidor)
-------THE GOLD RUSH (Chaplin)
-------GREED (Von Stroheim)
-------LADY WINDERMERE'S FAN (Lubitsch)
-------POTEMKIN (Eisenstein)
1926. FAUST (Murnau)
1927. THE GENERAL (Keaton)
-------LA GLANCE A TROIS FACES (Jean Epstein)
-------METROPOLIS (Lang)
-------SEVENTH HEAVEN (Borzage)
-------SUNRISE (Murnau)
1928. THE CROWD (Vidor)
-------DOCKS OF NEW YORK (Sternberg)
-------LONESOME (Fejos)
-------PANDORA'S BOX (Pabst)
-------THE PASSION OF JEANNE D'ARC (Dreyer)
-------SHOOTING STARS (Anthony Asquith)
-------SPIES (Fritz Lang)
-------STREET ANGEL (Borzage)
1929. MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA (Vertov)
-------UN CHIEN ANDALOU (Bunuel)
1930. THE BLUE ANGEL (Sternberg)
-------EARTH (Dovzhenko)
-------L'AGE D'OR (Bunuel)
-------MURDER! (Hitchcock)
1931. LA CHIENNE (Renoir)
--------CITY LIGHTS (Chaplin)
------THE FRONT PAGE (Milestone)
------THE 3 PENNY OPERA (Pabst/Germany)
1932. A FAREWELL TO ARMS (Borzage)
------BOUDU SAVED FROM DROWNING (Renoir)
------FREAKS (Browning)
------I WAS BORN BUT... (Ozu)
------LOVE ME TONIGHT (Mamoulian)
------SHANGHAI EXPRESS (Sternberg)
------TROUBLE IN PARADISE (Lubitsch)
1933. DESIGN FOR LIVING (Lubitch)
------HALLELUJAH, I'M A BUM (Milestone)
-------LA MATERNELLE (Epstein/Benoit-Levy)
-------LA MUJER DEL PUERTO (Arcady Boytler/Mexico)
-------ZERO IN CONDUCT (Vigo)
1934. IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT (Capra)
-------L'ATALANTE (Vigo)
-------SCARLET EMPRESS (Sternberg)
-------EL COMPADRE MENDOZA (Fernando de Fuentes/Mexico)
1935. THE INFORMER (Ford)
------- PETER IBBETSON (Hathaway)
------- SYLVIA SCARLETT (Cukor)
1936. A DAY IN THE COUNTRY (Renoir)
-------MODERN TIMES (Chaplin)
-------OSAKA ELEGY (Mizoguchi)
-------SISTERS OF THE GION (Mizoguchi)
1937. GRAND ILLUSION (Renoir)
-------THE AWFUL TRUTH (McCarey)
-------MAKE WAY FOR TOMORROW (McCarey)
1938. ALEXANDER NEVSKY (Eisenstein)
-------HOLIDAY (Cukor)
1939. THE RULES OF THE GAME (Renoir)
------STAGECOACH (Ford)
------STORY OF THE LATE CHRYSANTHEMUMS (Mizoguchi)
1940. THE GREAT DICTATOR (Chaplin)
------HIS GIRL FRIDAY (Hawks)
-------PINOCCHIO (Sharpsteen)
-------THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER (Lubitsch)
1941. CITIZEN KANE (Welles)
------SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS (Preston Sturges)
1942. THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS (Welles)
------OSSESSIONE (Visconti)
1943. CASABLANCA (Curtiz)
-------DAY OF WRATH (Dreyer)
-------DISTINTO AMANECER (Julio Bracho)
-------I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE (Tourneur)
-------MESHES OF THE AFTERNOON (Deren)
-------THE SEVENTH VICTIM (Mark Robson)
1944. CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE (von Fritsch)
-------LAURA (Preminger)
-------MIRACLE OF MORGAN'S CREEK (Sturges)
1945. FALLEN ANGEL (Preminger)
------IVAN THE TERRIBLE (Eisenstein)
-------ROMA: OPEN CITY (Rosellini)
------ THE SOUTHERNER (Renoir)
1946. NOTORIOUS (Hitchcock)
-------SHOESHINE (De Sica)
-------THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES (Wyler)
1947. MONSIEUR VERDOUX (Chaplin)
--------BODY AND SOUL (Robert Rossen)
--------OUT OF THE PAST (Tourneur)
1948. BICYCLE THIEVES (De Sica)
-------FORT APACHE (Ford)
-------LA TERRA TREMA (Visconti)
-------LETTER FROM AN UNKNOWN WOMAN (Ophuls)
-------TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE (Huston)
1949. -THE HEIRESS (Wyler)
-------THE THIRD MAN (Reed)
-------LATE SPRING (Ozu)
-------PUEBLERINA (Emilio Fernandez)
1950. AVENTURERA (Alberto Gout)
-------STARS IN MY CROWN (Tourneur)
-------LOS OLVIDADOS (Bunuel)
-------WAGONMASTER (Ford)
1951. ACE IN THE HOLE (Wilder)
-------GUERNICA (Resnais)
------- RASHOMON (Kurosawa)
-------THE RIVER (Renoir)
1952.IKIRU (Kurosawa)
-------OTHELLO (Welles)
-------THE LIFE OF OHARU (Mizoguchi)
1953. EARRINGS OF MADAME DE... (Ophuls)
-------THE GOLDEN COACH (Renoir)
-------TOKYO STORY (Ozu)
-------UGETSU (Mizoguchi)
1954. THE CRUCIFIED LOVERS (Mizoguchi)
-------LATE CHRYSANTHEMUMS (Naruse)
-------REAR WINDOW (Hitchcock)
-------SALT OF THE EARTH (Biberman)
-------SANSHO THE BAILIFF (Mizoguchi)
-------SOUND OF THE MOUNTAIN (Naruse)
1955. THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER (Laughton)
-------ORDET (Dreyer)
-------PATHER PANCHALI (Ray)
1956. APARAJITO (RAY)
------THE SEARCHERS (Ford)
-------THE SEVENTH SEAL (Bergman)
1957. A MAN ESCAPED (Bresson)
-------AN AFFAIR TO REMEMBER (McCarey)
-------THE CRANES ARE FLYING (Kalatozov)
-------NIGHTS OF CABIRIA (Fellini)
-------PATHS OF GLORY (Kubrick)
-------WILD STRAWBERRIES (Bergman)
1958. TOUCH OF EVIL (Welles)
-------VERTIGO (Hitchcock)
1959. THE 400 BLOWS (Truffaut)
-------ANATOMY OF A MURDER (Preminger)
-------FLOATING WEEDS (Ozu)
-------FRITZ LANG'S INDIAN EPIC (Lang)
-------HIROSHIMA, MON AMOUR (Resnais)
-------IMITATION OF LIFE (Sirk)
-------MOI, UN NOIR (Rouch)
-------NORTH BY NORTHWEST (Hitchcock)
-------PICKPOCKET (Bresson)
-------SOME LIKE IT HOT (Wilder)
-------THE WORLD OF APU (Ray)
1960. L'AVVENTURA (Antonioni)
-------PEEPING TOM (Powell)
-------PSYCHO (Hitchcock)
-------WHEN A WOMAN ASCENDS THE STAIRS (Naruse)
-------WILD RIVER (Kazan)
-------THE YOUNG ONE (Bunuel)
1961. LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD (Resnais)
-------PLACIDO (Berlanga)
-------VIRIDIANA (Bunuel)
1962. LA JETEE (Marker)
-------LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (Lean)
--------L'ECLISSE (Antonioni)
-------MAMA ROMA (Pasolini)
-------MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE (Ford)
-------MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (Schlesinger)
-------MY LIFE TO LIVE (Godard)
1963. 8 1/2 (Fellini)
-------CONTEMPT (Godard)
-------DEAD BIRDS (Gardner)
-------EL VERDUGO (Berlanga)
-------THE LEOPARD (Visconti)
-------MURIEL or THE TIME OF RETURN (Resnais)
-------THE ORGANIZER (Monicelli)
-------SHOCK CORRIDOR (Fuller)
1964. DR. STRANGELOVE (Kubrick)
-------GERTRUD (Dreyer)
-------MARNIE (Hitchcock)
-------SHADOWS OF OUR FORGOTTEN ANCESTORS (Paradjanov)
1965. ALPHAVILLE (Godard)
-------FALSTAFF (Welles)
-------LA NOIRE DE... (Sembene)
-------REPULSION (Polanski)
-------THE SHOP ON MAIN STREET (Kadar)
1966. AU HASARD BALTHAZAR (Bresson)
-------CLOSELY WATCHED TRAINS (Menzel)
1967. MOUCHETTE (Bresson)
-------PLAYTIME (Tati)
-------TITICUT FOLLIES (Wiseman)
1968. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (Kubrick)
-------THE COLOR OF POMEGRANATES (Paradjanov)
-------THE JOKE (Jires)
------ MEMORIAS DEL SUBDESARROLLO (Gutierrez Alea)
1969. ANDREI RUBLEV (Tarkovsky)
1970. THE CONFORMIST (Bertolucci)
-------THE GARDEN OF THE FINZI-CONTINIS (De Sica)
-------WOODSTOCK (Wadleigh)
1971. McCABE AND MRS. MILLER (Altman)
-------MURMUR OF THE HEART (Malle)
-------WALKABOUT (Roeg)
1972. THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISE (Bunuel)
1973. AGUIRRE, THE WRATH OF GOD (Herzog)
-------CELINE AND JULIE GO BOATING (Rivette)
-------LAST TANGO IN PARIS (Bertolucci)
-------THE SPIRIT OF THE BEEHIVE (Erice)
1974. ALI: FEAR EATS THE SOUL (Fassbinder)
-------CHINATOWN (Polanski)
-------EDVARD MUNCH (Watkins)
-------THE GODFATHER II (COPPOLA)
-------HEARTS AND MINDS (Davis)
1975. BARRY LYNDON (Kubrick)
-------NASHVILLE (Altman)
-------ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (Forman)
1976. CRIA (Saura)
-------HARLAN COUNTY, USA (Kopple)
1977. ERASERHEAD (Lynch)
1978. THE TREE OF WOODEN CLOGS (Olmi)
1979. APOCALYPSE NOW (Coppola)
-------STALKER (Tarkovsky)
1980. BERLIN ALEXANDERPLATZ (Fassbinder)
1981. MODERN ROMANCE (Albert Brooks)
------MOANA WITH SOUND (Flaherty)
------PIXOTE (Babenco)
------ REDS (Beatty)
1982. FANNY AND ALEXANDER (Bergman)
-------LA TRAVIATA (Zefirelli)
1983. EL SUR (Erice)
-------SANS SOLEIL (Marker)
1984. ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA (Leone)
1985. A TIME TO LIVE, A TIME TO DIE (Hou)
-------BRAZIL (Gilliam)
-------THE OFFICIAL STORY (Puenzo)
-------SHOAH (Lanzmann)
1986. FOREST OF BLISS (Robert Gardner)
----- MELO (Resnais)
1987. FULL METAL JACKET (Kubrick)
-------THE LAST EMPEROR (Bertolucci)
-------YEELEN (Cisse)
1988. DEKALOG (Kieskowski)
-------DISTANT VOICES, STILL LIVES (Davies)
-------THE GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES (Takahata)
-------LANDSCAPE IN MIST (Angelopoulos)
-------THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST (Scorsese)
1989. DO THE RIGHT THING (Spike Lee)
-------MY LEFT FOOT (Sheridan)
1990. GOODFELLAS (Scorsese)
-------JU DOU (Yimou)
-------MONSIEUR HIRE (Leconte)
1991. A BRIGHTER SUMMER DAY (Yang)
-------DAUGHTERS OF THE DUST (Julie Dash)
-------RAISE THE RED LANTERN (Yimou)
-------TOTO THE HERO (Dormael)
-------NAKED LUNCH (Cronenberg)
1992. ACTRESS (Kwan)
-------THE BOYS OF ST. VINCENT (Smith)
-------LESSONS OF DARKNESS (Herzog)
-------THE LONG DAY CLOSES (Davies)
-------UNFORGIVEN (Eastwood)
1993. BUTTERFLY WINGS (Ulloa)
-------FAREWELL, MY CONCUBINE (Kaige)
-------GROUNDHOG DAY (Ramis)
-------THE PUPPETMASTER (Hou)
-------WITTGENSTEIN (Derek Jarman)
1994. BEFORE THE RAIN (Manchevski)
-------CRUMB (Zwigoff)
-------EXOTICA (Egoyan)
-------THREE COLORS: BLUE/WHITE/RED (Kieslowski)
-------TO LIVE (Yimou)
1995. DEAD MAN (Jarmusch)
-------SAFE (Haynes)
-------UNDERGROUND (Kusturica)
1996. BREAKING THE WAVES (Trier)
-------IRMA VEP (Assayas)
-------LONE STAR (Sayles)
1997. KUNDUN (Scorsese)
------THE MAELSTROM (Peter Forgacs)
-------THE SWEET HEREAFTER (Egoyan)
-------THE TASTE OF CHERRY (Kiarostami)
1998. FLOWERS OF SHANGHAI (Hou)
1999. EYES WIDE SHUT (Kubrick)
-------THE WIND WILL CARRY US (Kiarosatami)
2000. IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE (Kar Wai)
--------SUZHOU RIVER (Ye)
2001. A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (Spielberg/Kubrick)
-------THE SWAMP (Martel)
-------MULLHOLLAND DRIVE (Lynch)
-------SPIRITED AWAY (Miyazaki)
-------TIME OUT (Cantet)
2002. ADAPTATION (Spike Jonze/Charlie Kaufman)
------ ARARAT (Egoyan)
-------BLOODY SUNDAY (Greengrass)
-------THE MAGDALENE SISTERS (Mullan)
-------THE PIANIST (Polanski)
-------RUSSIAN ARK (Sokurov)
-------THE SON (Dardenne)
2003. A TALKING PICTURE (de Oliveira)
------THE CORPORATION (Abbott/Achbar)
2004. ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (Gondry)
-------THE HOLY GIRL (Martel)
------ SHAKE HANDS WITH THE DEVIL:THE JOURNEY OF ROMEO DALLAIRE
------ 2046 (Kar Wai)
------ YES (Potter)
2005. COMO PASAN LAS HORAS (Oliveira Cezar)
------THE NEW WORLD (Malick)
------ THREE TIMES (Hou)
2006. AWAY FROM HER (Polley)
-------FICTION (Gay)
-------HALF NELSON (Fleck)
-------INLAND EMPIRE (Lynch)
-------OFFSIDE (Panahi)
-------PAN'S LABYRINTH (del Toro)
2007. CHOP SHOP (Bahrani)
------EASTERN PROMISES (Cronenberg)
2008. ASHES OF TIME Redux (Kar Wai)
-------GOODBYE SOLO (Bahrani)
-------THE HEADLESS WOMAN (Martel)
-------LIVERPOOL (Alonso)
2009. THE WHITE RIBBON (Haneke)
2010. GREENBERG (Baumbach/USA)
------MYSTERIES OF LISBON (Ruiz/Portugal)
------NOSTALGIA FOR THE LIGHT (Guzman/Chile)
------THE STRANGE CASE OF ANGELICA (Oliveira/Portugal)
2011. A SEPARATION (Farhadi/Iran)
------THE ARBOR (Clio Barnard/UK)
------BERNIE (Linklater)
------THE TREE OF LIFE (Malick/USA)
------THE TURIN HORSE (Bela Tarr/Hungary)
2012-HERE AND THERE (Mendez Esparza/Mexico)
2013-IDA (Pawlikowski/Poland)
-----PARADISE:LOVE/FAITH/HOPE (Seidl/Austria)
2014-GOODBYE TO LANGUAGE (Godard/France-Switzerland)
-----HORSE MONEY (Pedro Costa/Portugal)
-----MR. TURNER (Leigh/UK)
2015-BROOKLYN (John Crowley/Ireland)
-----EMBRACE OF THE SERPENT (Guerra/Colombia)
-----45 YEARS (Haigh/UK)
-----HEART OF A DOG (Anderson/USA)
-----SON OF SAUL (Nemes/Poland)
2016-THE DEATH OF LOUIS XIV (Serra/Spain)
-----MOONLIGHT (Jenkins)
-----PATERSON (Jarmusch/USA)
2017-THE BIG SICK (Showalter/USA)
-----MUDBOUND (Rees/USA)
2018-A BREAD FACTORY (Wang/USA)
-----THE IMAGE BOOK (Godard/France-Switzerland)
-----THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND (Welles/Kodar/USA)
-----ROMA (Alfonso Cuarón/Mexico)
-----ZAMA (Martel/Argentina)
2019-SORRY WE MISSED YOU (Loach/UK)
-----VITALINA VARELA (Pedro Costa)
2020 FIRST COW (Reichardt)
-----MINARI (Cheung)[/QUOTE]

Great list, Oscar. Glad to see some Altman on there, he's one of my favorites. I need to print this out and take it to the video store (or Netflix). I've missed alot of these so far, particularly some of the foreign films. "The Rules of the Game" is one I really want to see.

This list confirms your impeccable taste. You're a kindred spirit, oscar.

The silents part of the list is what I really like. You've pretty much nailed every important work, save Gance's Napoleon and Haxan.
But those two are little on the crude side, so...
Lang's epic Die Niebelungen comes highly recommended from me as well. Kino just put out a gorgeous 2-disc set.

You're definitely a serious film buff oscar. Your list is basically a must-see scroll. Just about every one is a classic of some sort.
I just saw Eraserhead again two nights ago. Pure brilliance. I was in a trance once again. The soundtrack is an ear invasion. That low "hum" or whatever you call it just adds so much to the trippy black & white images.

These names also deserve some discussion: Paradjanov, Sternberg, Visconti (The Leopard is a Criterion I want), Vigo, Berlanga and Olmi. All great directors who have a limited audience.


Justified! Have you seen Les Vampires? If not, then start at the top, baby! If you want a marathon, you can't go wrong with this incredible, poetic, silent film experience.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann
Justified! Have you seen Les Vampires? If not, then start at the top, baby! If you want a marathon, you can't go wrong with this incredible, poetic, silent film experience.

---

That's one of the many on the list I haven't seen. I'm trying to catch up! There's only so much time in the day...

I did watch Casa De Los Babys last night. I enjoy Sayles' rather slow-paced, thoughtful movies, and this one was no exception. Lone Star (on Oscar's list) is also one of my favorites - it does a good job of capturing the "essence" of Texas, and it's a good story to boot...

There are some very outstanding films on your list. Thanks for posting it. While not all the films are to my liking, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend any of them (except possibly for Safe which I strongly dislike). I've noted the three I haven't heard of (except of course for the silent films of which I don't watch very many) Placido, Cria, and Caido del Cielo and will look them up pronto.

Originally posted by JustaFied
Great list, Oscar. Glad to see some Altman on there, he's one of my favorites.

Thanks, JustaFied. I love the way Altman uses overlapping dialogue and his expert hand directing large groups or ensembles. Other Altmans you'd find in my year-end top 10s: The Long Goodbye, Short Cuts and Gosford Park.

I've missed alot of these so far, particularly some of the foreign films. "The Rules of the Game" is one I really want to see.

100 out of 208 movies listed are in a foreign language. I must believe one is profusely rewarded for subjecting oneself to the annoyance of subtitles and the complications they create. I have listed Renoir's The Rules of the Game in my Filmwurld profile. I love this movie (btw, it's clearly a major influence on Gosford Park). But until recently you'd have to see it on a mediocre vhs tape. Criterion's disc makes it easier for those of us who don't speak French to appreciate the full flavor of this dialogue-heavy film (Conversely, imagine the French trying to get all the jokes in Hawks' Bringing Up Baby or His Girl Friday). At the very least, full appreciation of the performances will be affected. I think this very entertaining, engaging movie deserves to be seen twice.

That took a lot of courage on your part. Are you not wearing your heart on your sleeve? Still, I now know a little more why we all admire you so much. I was so glad you chose "Paths of Glory". I remember when I left the cinema (I actually saw it on campus), I wanted to go out and kick some right-winger's ass who supported the war in Viet Nam (a hot topic then). Kubrick knew how to elicit those kinds of feelings. Thanks, Oscar.

Originally posted by Johann
You're a kindred spirit, oscar.

Oh, I know it. Some would say we have the same screw loose :)

The silents part of the list is what I really like. You've pretty much nailed every important work, save Gance's Napoleon and Haxan.
Lang's epic Die Niebelungen comes highly recommended from me as well. Kino just put out a gorgeous 2-disc set.

I will rent Die Niebelungen as soon as I'm done with a little project: two friends in their early 20s plan to open an "alternative" rental shop in the cultural wastelands of suburbia. They've asked me to stock the foreign language section. I've bought close to $1000 worth of vhs and dvd, new and used, so far. But it's taking a lot of my leisure time to find the best deals.
I seem to prefer German and American silent films. Marty Scorsese's list would probably start with the Italian Cabiria (which I haven't seen) and would certainly include the two excellent films you mention (which I don't quite love). Others that fall into that category: Berlin:Symphony of a Great City, The Birth of a Nation, Man with a Moving Camera, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, The Scarlett Letter, The Love of Jeanne Ney.


I just saw Eraserhead again two nights ago. Pure brilliance. I was in a trance once again. The soundtrack is an ear invasion. That low "hum" or whatever you call it just adds so much to the trippy black & white images.

Excellent observation.

These names also deserve some discussion: Paradjanov, Sternberg, Visconti (The Leopard is a Criterion I want), Vigo, Berlanga and Olmi. All great directors who have a limited audience.

J, do you think these directors have a limited audience because their films are not widely available (the long wait for a proper The Leopard appears finally over, eh?)? Or do you think the films themselves have features that would alienate mainstream audiences? Don't people want to see at least six of the Sternbergs, if only to watch Marlene Dietrich? Maybe not. Visconti and Olmi are expert storytellers, but maybe subtitles and period costumes shrink their potential audience. Vigo and Berlanga have been largely ignored (only Vigo's L'Atalante is available on video). Paradjanov is reserved for audiences interested in pictorial art, folklore and poetry (but not necessarily all of them).

Originally posted by JustaFied
I'm trying to catch up!
There's a ton of great movies to discover. How can anyone complain of boredom?

I did watch Casa De Los Babys last night. I enjoy Sayles' rather slow-paced, thoughtful movies, and this one was no exception. Lone Star (on Oscar's list) is also one of my favorites - it does a good job of capturing the "essence" of Texas

Sayles captures the essence of wherever he goes because he's like the opposite of the "ugly American" cliche. He inmerses into enviroments, observes, asks questions with open mind and heart. All his movies convey a credible picture of the cultures that provide context to his stories. (His books do too. He "nails" exiled Cubans in his novel "Los Gusanos").

Cinema is a very deep sea.
Those willing "to give it up" have no excuse for boredom. Many masters have worked hard at giving the world images that provoke, question and entertain.

Either you get it or you don't. It's the world's loss if more people won't engage or tap into the possibilities of cinema. As I've said before, it's all there on screen- the only thing holding you back is the level of interest you have in what you are watching.

As for Sternberg & Co, I think it's a combination of both availability and content that alienates audiences. It seems noboby wants to sit through The Tree of Wooden Clogs. Who the hell knows about this movie? Film buffs and that's about it. A damn shame.
It's a Palm D'or winning masterpiece that has virtually no audience. What can you do? The public is a fickle, temperamental lot.

Originally posted by Howard Schumann
I've noted the three I haven't heard of (except of course for the silent films of which I don't watch very many) Placido, Cria, and Caido del Cielo and will look them up pronto.

Cria (aka Raise Ravens) is the one that had a theatrical and home video release here. Ana Torrent's performances here (as Ana) and in Erice's Spirit of the Beehive are often cited amongst the best characterizations of childhood ever. The film works as both psychological drama, and political allegory about a new nation struggling to emerge after 35 years of Fascism. Like Ana, Cria is melancholic but never defeatist or pessimistic.

Several of Peruvian director Francisco Lombardi's films are available on vhs and dvd (The City and The Dogs, Don't Tell Anyone, Tinta Roja, Captain Pantoja, The Wolf's Mouth) but not Caidos del Cielo (Fallen from Heaven). The characters are poor and working-class residents of Lima. The movie was a huge hit at our Film Fest in 1990. Tarantino would later popularize its 3-parallel-narrative-threads-finally-meet structure.

Just like the Marshall Plan excluded Spain, our screens never showed films from Spain during the 50s and 60s. Foreign films in distribution were French, Italian, or directed by Kurosawa or Bergman. Placido (an Oscar nominee) and El Verdugo (The Executioner) are my favorite films directed by Luis Berlanga. I hope some day his films and others from Spanish directors like Juan Antonio Bardem (Javier's uncle) become widely available. For a brief introduction go to: www.villagevoice.com/issues/0150/stein.php
For a longer essay go to: http://www.sensesofcinema.com/conten.../berlanga.html

Thanks very much for the links and for the detailed information about these films. Of the three, only Cria is available here and I will try to watch it soon.

Originally posted by cinemabon
. Are you not wearing your heart on your sleeve?

I keep using the word "love" on this thread. These are the movies I feel compelled to watch. Often when I'm writing or doing something else, I play the videos just to listen to the soundtrack. These films influenced who I am, what I believe in, and continue to do so.
Going over these titles prior to posting, I thought to myself: "cinemabon will be disappointed I didn't include enough Westerns and Musicals" (we've had some nice exchanges about these genres). I also feel there aren't enough Comedies. Some of the wonderful genre movies not listed (as of today) include: Singin' in the Rain, She Wore A Yellow Ribbon, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Some Like It Hot, The Naked Spur, Hail the Conquering Hero.
Regarding Kubrick, I've included 6 titles, which feels excessive given he directed 11. I thought it over and was unable to drop a single film He gets my vote for most consistent film director, which is remarkable when you consider he kept coming up with something radically different than his previous movies. 2001 and A Clockwork Orange are the first two I saw. They had a tremendous influence on youth when they came out. I didn't get to watch Paths of Glory until the late 90s. It remains a powerful experience, with more shadings than first apparent to me, and inspired performances. No doubt the Military Culture vs. Basic Human Decency polemic appeals to me. Thanks for your kind comments.

I went ahead and split the thread. The discussion of Todd Haynes' "Safe" is now in the General Film Forum.
P

Yeelen is an award-winning film from 1987 directed by Souleymane Cisse from Mali. Mr. Cisse and Senegalese Ousmane Sembene are the two most respected film directors from Africa. I have sought African films for years; it's been a frustrating experience. Yeelen is my favorite African film I've seen but I was reluctant to include it based on one viewing many years ago. I recently saw it twice, on dvd. It's truly a one-of-a-kind experience and a masterpiece. I've added it the list of favorites that opened this thread.

Yeelen is truly a "foreign" film. It is an animist creation story that incorporates a conflict between father-and-son practitioners of Komo, an ancient religion of the Bambara culture in what is now Mali. The film takes place in the 14th century, prior to the invasion by Morocco, the colonization by France, and slavery. It displays a circular time orientation and cultural references non-Africans rarely encounter. Animal sacrifice, curses, milk baths, evil eye, animal spirits, purifying springs, posts and totems with unique powers, shamans, chants, strange rituals...you get the idea. Yeelen is extraordinarily beautiful, with precisely composed images bursting with color.

Yeelen was released on dvd last October. Truly enchanting.

1902. Voyage to the Moon
1903. The Great Train Robbery
1915. The Birth of a Nation
1927. The Jazz Singer
1933. King Kong
1935. Frankenstein
1937. Snow White
1939. Wizard of Oz
------ Gone with the Wind
1948. Hamlet
1952. Singing in the Rain
1953. Roman Holiday
1954. On the Waterfront
------ Seven Samurai
1955. Rebel with a Cause
1956. The King and I
------ Forbidden Planet
1959. Ben-Hur
1960. Pyscho
1961. Breakfast at Tiffany's
------ West Side Story
1962. Lawrence of Arabia
------ Jules and Jim
------ Cape Fear
------ How the West was Won
------ To Kill a Mockingbird
------ Days of Wine and Roses
1963. The Birds
------ The Miracle Worker
------ The Lilies of the Field
------ Charade
1964. Mary Poppins
------ My Fair Lady
1965. The Ipcress File
------ The Sound of Music
------ Dr. Zhivago
------ Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines
1966. A Man and a Woman
------ Fahrenheit 451
------ The Endless Summer
1967. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
------ Barbarella
------ The Graduate
------ Bonnie and Clyde
------ To Sir With Love
1968. The Planet of the Apes
------ Rosemary's Baby
------ The Yellow Submarine
1969. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
------ Satyricon
1970. M*A*S*H
------ Love Story
------ Little Big Man
1971. Clockwork Orange
------ Summer of 42
------ The French Connection
------ Harold and Maude
1972. Cabaret
------ The Godfather
1973. la Planete sauvage
------ The Exorcist
------ Cries and Whispers
1974. Amarcord
------ Emmanuelle
1975. Picnic at Hanging Rock
------ The Rocky Horror Picture Show
------ Jaws
------ The Story of O
------ One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
1976. All The President's Men
------ Taxi Driver
------ The Man Who Fell to Earth
------ The Omen
1977. Annie Hall
------ Star Wars
------ Close Encounters of the Third Kind
1979. Alien
1981. The Elephant Man
------ Excalibur
1982. Chariots of Fire
------ Bladerunner
------ Gandhi
------ Tootsie
1983. Koyannisqatsi
1984. Ghostbusters
------ Amadeus
1985. The Purple Rose of Cairo
------ Ran
1986. Blue Velvet
------ The Name of the Rose
------ Manhunter
------ Platoon
1987. Fatal Attraction
1988. The Big Blue
------ Who Framed Roger Rabbit
1989. Dead Poet's Society
------ Born on the Fourth of July
------ Roger and Me
------ Sex, Lies, and Videotape
1990. Akira
------ Dances with Wolves
1991. Silence of the Lambs
------ Barton Fink
------ The Fisher King
------ Naked Lunch
------ Delicatessen
1992. A River Runs Through It
------ Dracula
------ Chaplin
1993. The Crying Game
------ The Piano
------ Like Water for Chocolate
------ The Joy Luck Club
------ Sleepless In Seattle
------ Three Colors Blue
------ Mrs. Doubtfire
1994. Pulp Fiction
------ The Shawshank Redemption
------ The Mask
1995. Interview with a Vampire
------ Legends of the Fall
------ Apollo 13
------ The Usual Suspects
1996. Twelve Monkeys
------ Fargo
------ Crash
------ Evita
------ Striptease
1997. The English Patient
------ The Full Monty
1998. LA Confidential
------ Sliding Doors
------ The Truman Show
------ Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels
------ Saving Private Ryan
1999. Shakespeare in Love
------ Run Lola Run
------ The Red Thin Line
------ The Matrix
------ Election
------ The Sixth Sense
------ The Blair Witch Project
------ The Insider
2000. American Beauty
------ Magnolia
------ Being John Malkovich
------ Snatch
------ Almost Famous
------ Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
------ The House of Mirth
------ Nurse Betty
2001. Traffic
------ Cast Away
------ Chocolat
------ Pollack
------ AI
------ Moulin Rouge
------ Vanilla Sky
------ The Others
2002. A Beautiful Mind
------ Black Hawk Down
------ Amelie
------ Gosford Park

We're on a new page. But what is "American Popular List" about these? Some were popular everywhere. Some you could hardly call popular. Many are not American, so I assume you mean popular in America, but if so, not with the general audience, which didn't see The Seven Samural or Amarcord, or many others here. Come on, tabuno, how did you make up this list, and what is it supposed to show?

Let's go back to Oscar's list.

What is the point of lists anyway? Trophy lists? Notches in your cineaste’s belt? No, I know, expressions of love. Wearing your love on your sleeve, so to speak. BUt what is the value of publishing such a list? They can be tips to someone on what may be worth looking up, but they can also alienate by reminding us how many of our favorite movies don’t mean much to somebody else. Oscar’s list contains many wonderful items, beautiful classics. But why so few listed for some years I can’t imagine, some great years. I especially find it odd that he has so few movies that he loves going back to again and again from the most recent years. And he seems to slight the French New Wave, and American movies generally. Here is a rough list of some of the main ones I could come up with for each year that he did not list but I’d have to, among others. When I say “I’d have to,” I mean I just can’t imagine omitting these, and some of them are just so great that they’d be on my top-twenty list. And this just a quick list, and there are others I’ve forgotten to mention. But what is the point, exactly? I still don’t get it.

What was the point of your list, Oscar? What prompted you to make up the list, and what prompted you to post it here? I'm not challenging you; I'm just really curious about the thoughts and motives that lie behind list-making. I've only posted these movies listed below in self defense, so to speak, to save some pieces of my world that were seemingly being swept under the carpet by these other lists. Kinda makes you realize why Rosenbaum made a list of his thousand favorites.


1949 King Hearts and Coronets (Hamer)
1951 The Man in the White Suit (Mackendrick)
1953 The Wages of Fear (Clément)
1960 Tirez sur la pianiste (Truffaut)
1962 To Kill a Mockingbird (Mulligan)
-----The Elclipse (Antonioni)
1964 La Jetée (Marker)
1965 Alphaville (Godard)
-----Masculine Feminine (Godard)
1966 Sword of Doom (Kurosawa)
-----Blowup (Antonioni)
1967 Bonnie and Clyde (Penn)
-----Playtime (Tati)
-----Privilege (Watkins)
-----La prise de pouvoir de Louis XIV (Rossellini)
1969 The Wild Bunch (Peckinpah)
-----Ma Nuit chez Maud (Rohmer)
1970 Performance (Roeg)
-----The Spider’s Strategm (Bertolucci)
1971 THX-1138 (Lucas)
-----Tati’s Trafic
-----Two Lane Blacktop (Hellman)
1972 Solaris
1973 Last Tango in Paris should be 1972
-----Badlands (Malick)
-----The Long Goodbye (Altman)
1964 Kwaidan (Kobayashi)
-----The Conversation (Coppola)
1975 A Boy and His Dog (Jones)
1980 Atlantic City (Malle)
-----The Shining (Kubrick)
-----Melvin and Howard (Demme)
1981 Time Bandits
---Cutter’s Way (Passer)
1982 Blade Runner (Scott)
-----Diner (Levinson)
1984 Choose Me (Rudolph)
1984 Stranger Than Paradise (Jarmusch)
1986 Down by Law (Jarmusch)
-----Something Wild (Demme)
1987 Tin Men (Levinson)
1988 Hairspray (Waters)
-----Married to the Mob (Demme)
1989 Enemies, a Love Story (Mazursky)
-----Drugstore Cowboy (Van Sant)
1990 Days of Being Wild (Wong)
1991 My Own Private Idaho (Van Sant)
1992 Naked Lunch (Cronenberg)
1993 My Favorite Season {Téchiné)
1994 Wild Reeds (Téchiné)
-----Ashes of Time (Wong)
-----Red (Kieslowski)
1995 Before Sunrise (Linklater)
1996 Les Voleurs (Téchiné)
1998 West Beirut (Ziyad Duweyri)
-----The Thin Red Line (Malick)
1999 Magnolia (Anderson)
2000 Yi Yi (Yang)
-----Hamlet (Michael Almareyda)
2001 A.I. (Spielberg)
-----Waking Life (Linklater)
-----What Time Is It There? (Tsai)
2002 Spider (Cronenberg)
-----Y tu mama tambien (Alfonso Cuaron)
-----Sweet Sixteen (Loach)
-----The Believer (Bean)
-----Punch Drunk Love (Anderson)
-----Bowling for Columbine (Moore)

2003 Elephant (Van Sant)
-----Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (Tarantino)
-----City of God (Lund, Meirelles)

Thanks for posting your list Tabuno. You've watched a lot of great movies! Impressed particularly with excellent films like House of Myrth, which few have seen. Curious about your listing Chaplin but no Chaplin films. Even if you don't like classic westerns, give The Searchers a chance. I wonder whether you've had the opportunity to watch the films listed below. I think you'd enjoy the majority of them, based on the titles you listed. Give them a chance if so inclined.

2001
Chinatown
Dr. Strangelove
Nashville
Kundun
Guys and Dolls
The Best Years of our Lives
The Last Emperor
Ikiru
Belle Epoque
City of Lost Children

I'll reply to C.K.'s post a bit later.

Anyone who complains about a list of movies and then makes up and posts a list of movies himsedlf must really have a fascinating convoluted deductive logic.

Anyway, I'd like to thank you for pointing out that out of thousands of films I've come across, I can't keep track of them all, some even brilliant. I would like especially acknowledge with another list those movies that have been mentioned but that I somehow overlooked that are very worthy of yet another list (why is it that director's get the only credit in these lists - don't actors and actresses have some measure of worth in why some movies are very good?):

1962 To Kill a Mockingbird (Mulligan)
1966 Blowup (Antonioni)
1971 THX-1138 (Lucas)
1972 Solaris
1975 A Boy and His Dog (Jones)
1981 Time Bandits
1992 Naked Lunch (Cronenberg)
2002 Punch Drunk Love (Anderson)

I've seen:

2001
Chinatown
Dr. Strangelove
The Last Emperor
City of Lost Children

As for "Guys and Dolls," my half brother actually played in a high school production where he actually out performed Frank Sinatra.

Originally posted by tabuno
why is it that director's get the only credit in these lists - don't actors and actresses have some measure of worth in why some movies are very good?

I do believe most of the best films are primarily so because of a director imparting his/her unique vision and overseeing the project as a whole. Cinema is a collaborative medium but generally, and particularly since the 60s, it is the director who chooses the collaborators. But you are making an excellent point tabuno. The director is not necessarily the most important individual involved in a given film. Producers, writers, cinematographers and actors often deserve the most praise. I'll give you two examples that come to mind. Others may disagree, but I think the Oscar winner The Best Years Of Our Lives is so good because of cinematographer Gregg Toland and a couple of its actors. I also think the essential element responsible for the greatness of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is Charlie Kaufman's script. (Not that anybody else involved was slumming).

I've seen:
2001
Chinatown
Dr. Strangelove
The Last Emperor
City of Lost Children

Well, what do you think?

As for "Guys and Dolls," my half brother actually played in a high school production where he actually out performed Frank Sinatra.

That must've been some performance.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oscar jubis
the greatness of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is Charlie Kaufman's script. (Not that anybody else involved was slumming).

---

... and the same can be said about ADAPTATION and BEING JOHN MALKOVICH. Michel Gondry redeemed himself with ETERNAL SUNSHINE after HUMAN NATURE, a film and a script which required a more capable director.

What about if instead of just listing directors always after a movie, that the most influential person's name be used after a movie whether that be the director, the producer, the scriptwriter, cinematographer, one of the actors or actresses as a reference.

Call my logic convoluted if you like, but I had to make a list to show the inadequacy of lists, particularly short ones, no matter how wide a time period they span. Hence Oscar's polite suggestions to tabuno of additions and the point of Rosenbaum's making an "essential" list that's a thousand movies long. But you could as well make one two thousand movies long, or five thousand movies long, and the question still remains: what list is ever long enough, and hence, Why lists?

By another logic it makes sense to make a very short list, to say, or imply, "Lists are useless, because never long enough, so I'll make a tiny one to show just my own very favorite films." Another alternative to comprehensive lists, which broadcast their inadequecy, is the specialized list, for example let's say The Best Neo-Noirs of the Seventies (which would no doubt be headed by Chinatown) or The Best Non-Costume Japanese Films of the Fifies (which no doubt would be headed by Ikiru).

tabuno's new list includes some of my additions to Oscar's, all of which I mentioned except Time Bandits. Please note that my long list a few posts back was a comment on Oscar's list, not on tabuno's. My apologies to tabuno for only questioning the logic of his list, without diplomatically noting as Oscar did that his list contains lots of fine movies.

arsaib4 is right about Kaufman: he's a writer who overshadows his directors. After initial reluctance, I'm a big Kaufman convert now. I'd like to add Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (which fewer people saw) to the list, in fact I'm not sure it isn't my favorite Kaufman script, maybe because its focus on a real person and his real (if also unreal) autobiography draws attention away from Kaufman's personal head trips a little.

I can't help being influenced enough by "auteur" theory to think that a film whose most important force is somebody other than the director is a lesser film. Which is not to denegrate actors and all the other wonderful and talented people who get a nod on Oscar night.

I am humbled by your astute observation.

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Let's go back to Oscar's list. BUt what is the value of publishing such a list? They can be tips to someone on what may be worth looking up, but they can also alienate by reminding us how many of our favorite movies don’t mean much to somebody else.

I'll explain. Rosenbaum's list of 1000 favorites contains close to 400 films I have not seen. I was so happy to know there are so many potentially pleasurable and edifying films I have yet to discover. You don't specify how you personally felt looking at my list but you raise the possibility that posting such a list "can also alienate". I find it hard to envision such reaction. This is certainly not the way Johann, Howard, Cinemabon and JustFied reacted to my personal film canon. My reaction to yours is: I need to find a way to catch Kihachi Okamoto's Sword of Doom and Watkins's Privilege (and other films by this British director I've neglected). I also think these type of list is a reflection of one's personality and film-viewing history. I happen to have an interest in you. It's possible your list may shed some light into who you are and what you care about.

why so few listed for some years I can’t imagine, some great years. I especially find it odd that he has so few movies that he loves going back to again and again from the most recent years.

To read a post in which I've attempted to disclose what wpqx called "the method behind the madness", go to:
http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/show...=6731#post6731

And he seems to slight American movies generally.

I've responded to this criticism before. The last time was on the "Your 10 Best of the 90's" thread.

What prompted you to make up the list, and what prompted you to post it here?

I started my personal canon in the early 70s (when I started a "Cine-Club" with another kid and adult assistance). My film canon has grown to over 200 films that have had to prove their worth to me over the years. It's by no means a list of "all the masterpieces ever made" or "the great films". It's a list of personal favorites, movies that continue to provide pleasure and edification to me. The link above should provide evidence of what I value most in cinema. It's possible those who value my opinion would seek out some of the titles they have missed. It's a lot of work to post. But I was inspired by Howard Schumann posting his under the title "My Top 125".

I may overdramatize our differences at times to spur discussion and debate. I was also trying to get some kind of manifesto out of you, in which effort I have so far failed.

You are forever more positive and upbeat than I. You're positively Californian! We should trade places. I thought I did explain how somebody's list can potentially alienate. That is because you assume the person making the list is aware of the other films you love that he/she has confidently omitted. A list if well and elaborately constructed may constitute a fairly precise portrait of the author or at least of his/her filmgoing experience. But then it makes one realize how different everyone is from oneself and one feels more alone!

Can't anyone see this?

I know: "Vive le différence!!" But we live in "windowless monads" and these lists underline that. The "Rules of the Game" and "Rashomon" that you see are worlds away from the ones I see.

Watkins's Privilege is kind of obscure and I saw it a long, long time ago. However it is peculiar and interesting....I guess. I'm not sure it would have to be in my canon.

I had a feeling Rosenbaum would have reared his head somewhere. When you find (as I do or would also) that there are 2/5 of his "essential" but "personal" list (he fence-sits awfully cleverly there) that you haven't seen, isn't that daunting, or discouraging? don't you ever think that you'll never "catch up"?

So many movies, so little time!

I'm sorry you don't answer my question about slighting American films and giving so few favorites for recent years here, even briefly, so I have to go hunting for the answers. And I feel: how can there be any answers?

I would be much more moved to see a film I don't know by a well written review, than by its being included in some list. This at least is an argument for annotating one's list.

It has come up in discussing Rosenbaum, that he denigrates lists. And then he makes a list of 1,000 films.

One can only conclude that list-making is a compulsion. But I have to say, as others have, that I don't care about the list, what I care about is how you justify your choices. Hence I'd really rather you just took a few of them, and explained in detail why they are important to you. LIsts themselves are so mechanical. They have a personal use. For instance I keep a list, like a log, of all the movies I have seen this year, and the past few years. This is just so I don't forget, and can review how the whole year in movies looks to me. It helps keep me from forgetting anything when I come to make up my list of the ten or twenty best.

But when lists are made to recommend a canon, or to espouse a cause, that's okay too. There's really nothing wrong with lists. Lists are here to stay. It's just that I think they are of a lot more use when people have a good clear explanation for why they made their list and why it's he way it is. Which as it turns out, isn't easy to do.

In conclusion I would like to say (as my Egyptian students used to write at the end of their compositions) that of course your choices have a special significance to me and to others because of your exceptional dedication to the movies and the considerble knowledge of them you've acquired. In particular your lists show what you know about that I don't, and also what you either don't know about or are woefully unresponsive to, that I know and love.

There are people who are good at surveying and describing, and there are people who are good at analyzing more discrete units. I think I belong more to the second group. That's why I'm not very comfortable with lists.

There is also always the sense that somebody who makes a long or comprehensive list like you or Rosenbaum that it will look like a trophy list -- I mentioned this before -- an inventory of game "bagged." A brag.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Knipp

I would be much more moved to see a film I don't know by a well written review, than by its being included in some list.

---

I am in total agreement here although I do realize that there are people other than me (and apparently many) who live and die by lists and a certain list makes it easier for them to set their agendas.

As for lists vs. reviews I would go with a list, and there are two reasons. The first is that lists are a great place to start. I got into film by watching all 100 films on the AFI list (even the Jazz Singer). When you know absolutely nothing about film, then a list can do you wonders. The other reason is that I do not read reviews of films I have not seen. Most reviews give out way too much detail, and I believe should only be read to get more information, whether it be a different interpretation or an explanation of technical developments. Most reviews I write tend to give away way too much, because I tend to write with the attitude that someone reading it is under the same impression that I am.

I can't exactly see why film buffs of any stripe would be against review reading, at any stage of viewing. This is a form of anti-intellectualism.

I know many people think this, but to avoid reviews of movies you haven't seen strikes me as at best somewhat senseless -- and, moreover, it's acting against the purpose of popular review-writing, which is to tip off the public as to whether something is worth seeing or not. This is why popular reviewers avoid "spoilers." But if all that a movie has to offer is a surprise about how it turns out, then it's just ephemera.

So I don't agree with you, wpqx, but you can save review-reading for after watching a movie if you like -- when you can watch it. BUt what about the times when you can't? As today's reigning American film guru Jonathan Rosenbaum says right off in introducing his own "Personal Canon," "No one who claims to have seen all the possible contenders for the greatest films ever made can possibly be telling the truth." The only way to learn about those we haven't seen and probably can't see is to read about them -- and just to read their name in a list will hardly do it for you. Rosenbaum's new book, ESSENTIAL CINEMA: On the Necessity of Film Canons, is 400 pages of movie reviews, and a 45-page list. It hardly looks like Rosenbaum is setting lists above reviews, or wants us to skip the first 400 pages and just study the list.

Sure, a list is a good place to start if you're trying to fill in gaps in your knowledge, and that's one of their major values besides providing a profile of the list-maker's taste. A list is also a good way to end up when you've seen a lot of movies and want to record your experiences and organize them.

But let's not see this as an either/or. Rosenbaum's book gives us reviews plus a list, and we welcome and need both. It's just that I'm uncomfortable with the view that somehow under certain circumstances reviews need to be avoided and lists should take precedence. arsaib4 and I both feel that we're more likely to go out and find a movie we haven't seen on the basis of a fascinating review of it than its simply being on somebody's list, for the obvious reason that a review has much more to say.

You can do it however you like, the point is that reviews are an essential part of the process of appreciating film and even more so in the case of films we can't see. As a long-time in depth literature student myself who read a lot about books before, during and after the process of reading the books themselves and found that enormously enhanced my appreciation and understanding, I came to understand that you cannot "know too much" about a work before you actually read, watch, or listen to it. Forgive me, wpqx, but that's a naive view, though it's held by many. Besides, your statement is illogical, because you say you would choose a list over a review and then you say a list is a "great place to start." If it's just the beginning, then it's not the whole process of appreciation, and discussion and reading are other parts of that process.

I haven't read the previous conversation on this topic between you (Chris) and Oscar so I can't truly comment on what Oscar prefers but I do not think that someone as knowledgable as Oscar would totally disregard reading reviews.

What i specifically don't like is when a ' top whatever' topic comes up, certain poeple reach back to their massive databases and start posting these huge lists which frankly only helps them. Even when i start out reading these lists, about half way down i think to myself 'what am i doing?' as the interesting names i've read before start to fade. As one Times critic recenty denounced the 'endless credits' in films as death of cinema, these dreaded top ten lists have become part of the american culture in every aspect, and they aren't helpin' either.

Also, when it comes to reading books on and about films i'd much rather read something like The Dream Life by J.Hoberman which incorporates the films and the politics of a certain era (the sixties in this case) than a book just put together with bunch of reviews and lists.

I agree, and I wasn't addressing Oscar but Xpqx, who was expressing a common viewpoint that reviews "spoil" a film. Agreed, a long review collection is also numbing. But people pour over lists when it's their guru who's made it. Thanks to Howard Schumann for referring me back to this discussion: it's interesting because the leader of the discussion actually got Jonathan Rosenbaum to answer their questions about his "essential cinema" list. If you wade through the long thread, you may find something. It's helped me see the status Rosenbaum enjoys these days:

http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000010/flat/8771093

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I may overdramatize our differences at times to spur discussion and debate.

Well, I realize that. But I've thought at times, when debating others less familiar with your methods, that the quality of the debate would have been enhanced by acknowledging commonalities rather that taking an entirely confrontational approach.

I was also trying to get some kind of manifesto out of you, in which effort I have so far failed.

I provided a link (which I've tested) to a post in which I do precisely that.

I thought I did explain how somebody's list can potentially alienate. It makes one realize how different everyone is from oneself and one feels more alone!

Yes, you did explain. I guess I've always taken for granted how different everyone is from oneself. So much so that I react with surprise at what I perceive as a relatively high level of consensus between us. And between myself and Howard, and Johann, who has even called me a "kindred soul".

I had a feeling Rosenbaum would have reared his head somewhere. When you find that there are 2/5 of his "essential" but "personal" list that you haven't seen, isn't that daunting, or discouraging? don't you ever think that you'll never "catch up"?

You make it sound like it's a competition, like a road race. The longer my "to watch" list gets, the more excited I get at the potential for new sources of pleasure and edification.

I'm sorry you don't answer my question about slighting American films and giving so few favorites for recent years.

The link provides some answers. But I'll state here, as I've done before, that all my lists (including the 80s list when in my opinion American film was at a low ebb) include more American films than films from any other country. As far as recent films, I am strict as to what I include in my canon. These films need to prove themselves over several viewings. These are the "4 stars" films (to use mainstream media terms) which resonate with me in particular.

It has come up in discussing Rosenbaum, that he denigrates lists.

Never heard that before. He's actually spoken at length about how the 1962 Sight and Sound poll was a valuable guide in educating himself about must-see films that never played in the Rosenbaum theatres his family owned in Alabama.

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I can't exactly see why film buffs of any stripe would be against review reading, at any stage of viewing. This is a form of anti-intellectualism. the point is that reviews are an essential part of the process of appreciating film and even more so in the case of films we can't see. As a long-time in depth literature student myself who read a lot about books before, during and after the process of reading the books themselves and found that enormously enhanced my appreciation and understanding, I came to understand that you cannot "know too much" about a work before you actually read, watch, or listen to it.

Of course I don't disregard reading reviews, arsaib4. I agree entirely with this quote from C.K.
Of course, my dear daughter didn't write this and the post above.

first of all, is that you Oscar who just responded under someone's log in, your daughter's perhaps?

...never mind, i got my answer.

Informative read to say the least, Chris, i didn't know that you posted there also. Since i've still truly yet to discover Rosenbaum it was an interesting conversation for me, well balanced on both sides. But it seems to be that Rosenbaum is on a similar path like Kael, Sarris and couple others who are popular for their personalities for the most part rather than what they wrote.

Thanks arsaib4, for checking out the Rosenbaum thread. I'm going to bring it up again because I've learned a lot from it myself and I hope to share it with others.

To Oscar: Re your manifesto behind your list:

(You wrote) I provided a link (which I've tested) to a post in which I do precisely that.

For quick navigational purposes I wish you'd provided that link again here.

(You also commented) I've thought at times, when debating others less familiar with your methods, that the quality of the debate would have been enhanced by acknowledging commonalities rather that taking an entirely confrontational approach.

I will try to do so. My aim is to focus on issues not personalities.

(And you added:)You make it sound like it's a competition, like a road race

What may seem an easy ten-miler to you, may be pretty daunting to the neophyte jogger.

Question: Does Rosenbaum "denigrate" lists (as I asserted)?

I maybe should have said "expresses reservations about." Here is the exchange between Rosenbaum and IMDb "Classic Film" participant jiankevin on this topic:

Quote:

---

- I was actually quite surprised when I saw that your book argued for the necessity of canons, given your previous criticism of the AFI's top 100 lists and how it institutionalizes popular taste in much the same way as any canon does. Also, you testify to the profound affect that the Sight and Sound top 10 list had on you during your college years (as was the case for me) -- but couldn't one say that this, or any list, may be as limiting in its own way (in the perspective it espouses) as the AFI list? If the goal is to encourage people to see as many things as possible, I wonder if any canon or list alone is up to that task. Would you agree to that the problem is not in these canons or lists but in our attitudes towards them (for example, I don't think it was the virtue of the Sight and Sound list in itself, but your attitude towards it, that made it worthwhile)? Or is there something else that warrants our consideration?

I'm certainly not arguing that one list is as good (or as limited) as another list or that every canon or list necessarily institutionalizes. (I also am not arguing that it's invariably good to see as many movies as possible.) The criteria used for choosing participants in polls is very important. Sight and Sound knew how to get a representative sample of international critical thought in the 50s, 60s, and 70s; more recently, I think the same magazine has shown a less certain grasp of what's going on in criticism--although they obviously pay a lot more attention to business and market issues. The AFI seemed (and seems) concerned almost exclusively with market issues, not with criticism at all--which is partly what made their list so unsatisfying to me.

---

I recommend again perusing this thread on IMDb for anyone interested in Rosenbaum or the making of "definitive" lists of films:http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000010/flat/8771093.

At the end of his new book, Essential Cinema, where he introduces his list, Rosenbaum says, "Such a list thus carries an unfortunate ambiguity, one also present in some of Andrew Sarris's critical valuations in The American Cinema, namely, that in many cases it isn't clear whether an exclusion entails a critical judgment." He goes into this a bit more in the whole IMDb "interview" with jiankevin.

Since Rosenbaum has put out a notable list this year and engaged in some discussion of it, I hope maybe we can have some discussion of Rosenbaum's books on this site.

Again, issues, not personalities. We're all friends here. But I will not abandon my general aim of seeking to inspire debate.

I have added one more film directed by Carl Theodore Dreyer to my personal canon (see page 1). It's called The Parson's Widow and it was released in 1920. Mr. Dreyer is generally associated with serious films often labeled "transcendental", and has often been compared to Andrei Tarkovsky. You wouldn't know it from watching The Parson's Widow, the only one of the Danish master's films to incorporate comedy. It's more of a precursor to the type of films Jean Renoir would later direct. Dreyer stated that a good comedy needs to have "love, heart and warmth" and The Parson's Widow certainly meets those requirements. It's also highly original and visually splendid.

I had the opportunity to watch this and other rarely seen Dreyer films thanks to Turner Classics Movies. The cable channel is featuring his movies every Sunday in September. Check out your TV listings.

Documenting changes to my list of Favorites of All-Time or "Great Films I Love" that inagurated this thread, based on viewings from the past nine months. A title I had simply failed to list due to oversight is Orson Welles's Othello, still my favorite movie based on a Shakespeare play. One film is being removed from the list: the butchered-by-Hollywood The Magnificent Ambersons. I have to own up to the fact that, as it exists, this excellent film is compromised by the footage that was deleted and destroyed by the Studio. My being familiar via research with the content of that footage and the absolute brilliance of most of what's left cannot obscure the fact that the film as it exists feels incomplete and that the coarse shortening of a couple of scenes make me angry.
Excellent films I've watched in the past months that may merit inclusion in the future: Wanda (USA, 1970), 2046 (China, 2004), Lady of Musashino (Japan, 1951), Funeral Parade of Roses (Japan, 1969), and Jacques Tati's color version of Jour de Fete.
New Inclusions:
MOI, UN NOIR (1959).
My favorite of Jean Rouch's made-in-Africa movies mixing aspects of documentary and fiction films. Unexpectedly funny. Will I ever get to see it again?
LA NOIRE DE... (1965).
Ousmane Sembene's debut feature is both a very astute political film about colonialism and a moving character study. Also known as "Black Girl"
MOUCHETTE (1967)
Robert Bresson's de-romanticizes rural France in this companion to Au Hasard Balthazar. Highly allegorical and beautifully photographed.
MELO (1986)
Alan Resnais' is my favorite living French director and his adaptation of a Henry Bernstein play is absolutely perfect. Compulsively addicting menage-a-trois involving neurotic musicians circa 1926 Paris.
THE CORPORATION (2003)
Brilliantly conceived, magnificently edited Canadian doc about the most powerful contemporary institution. Entertaining and edifying.
ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (2004)
I've written a lot already about this masterful visualization of Charlie Kaufman's best script, which concerns aspects of longing and memory rarely treated with such insight and nuance. Watched it at theatre thrice and it still doesn't seem like that's enough.

Today, I updated my list of "Favorites of All Time" (or "Great Films I Love") that can be found at the beginning of this thread. The basic criteria is that these movies give me tremendous pleasure and edification over repeated viewings. This thread includes a discussion of the importance or lack of importance of lists or canons. My own experience makes these lists essential. As a teen and young adult, I used Andrew Sarris' yearly lists from 1929 to 1968 and the Sight and Sound's Critics and Directors polls as a guide as to what a film lover cannot miss (not what one must like or love, mind you, don't let anyone tell you that!). The lists were extremely helpful to me. I share my list in that same spirit of discovery that has guided my film viewing since the 1960s.

Repertory additions include:

Alfred Hitchcock's Murder! (1930), in my opinion his first masterpiece, in which he goes beyond Griffith in demonstrating via his camera how cinema transcends theater.

Abel Gance's La Roue (The Wheel) (1923) which was finally restored and released on dvd recently. I was so stunned by this 4 and 1/2 hour film that I rewatched it almost immediately and wrote a 13-page essay about it. Gance is justly famous for Napoleon, as seen by Abel Gance but it's La Roue that made my list.

La Maternelle

After rewatching some early Godard films as part of my French Cinema course at UM, I've come to the conclusion that I love his My Life to Live more than his debut (Breathless), which is the more accessible and more influential film. Breathless is too "drunk" on and indebted to the Hollywood films that nourished the young New Wave directors after WWII. My Life to Live seems to me after the latest screening as the more mature, more revealing work. It has more to say to me right now than the more famous Breathless (which I have removed from my list after much consideration). It also has Anna Karina in the role of her life.

I've also added three films shown in the USA in 2007 (listed as 2006 since my list is based on year of world premiere):

Fiction (Cesc Gay)

Away From Her (Sarah Polley)

Offside (Jafar Panahi)

I've watched these three times and they continue to impress as much or more than upon first viewing. There are a number of films I've posted about in my repertory threads pending additional viewings to decide if they are great enough to make it into the list.