The color of pomegranates is clearly an anti colonialist film too but Armenians are light skinned and western critics can’t find Armenia on a map so it goes in the trash 🗑️
I find it curious that people always talk about changes in the status quo as politically/ideologically influenced but don’t consider whether the previous status quos were also politically/ideologically influenced. Why is the classic canon list viewed as completely apolitical and neutral? Why are the critics of yesterday and their criteria considered non-ideological? And also why do these lists even matter? How is them being imperfect and biased (like they literally always were given that critics have always been imperfect and biased and influenced by the political/ideological landscape they exist in) “destroying cinema”? Why should one set of criteria be considered an objective way to judge art and why should that set of criteria be set in stone even if art is so much more complicated then merely technical acuity (or the adherence to certain ideals of technical acuity)? I find a lot of your videos interesting even if I don’t always agree, but I don’t think this one makes a proper argument, mostly just pointing to the fact that something (in this case a list) has changed with the main proof of this being a problem simply being that things have changed.
Ok, you implied the previous set of criteria was as biased as the current one, so what was the bias? If it was white-European, why were there so many Asian films in the list? If it was male and straight, why were Akerman and Claire Denis there at all? Can you honestly say you never noticed critics and artists in the last decade elevating minority filmmakers in fear they’d be criticized if they didn’t? Do you seriously believe that race, genre and sexuality are not taken into account today more than they were ten years ago?
@@Moviewise just because a bias exists, that doesn’t mean that there will never be exceptions in a list. I hardly think that two woman-directed films being on the previous list disproves the idea that different standards and ideas about gender roles and relations in the past affected art criticism in the past much like how evolving ideas and standards on those things affect modern day criticism. And I never said that those were the only biases or criteria, just that they were part of a complex set of biases which could be explored, just like one could explore the complex set of biases and worldviews which influence modern criticism. My point was that it makes no sense to view today’s ecosystem as unique in having biases, which is a mistake that a lot of people fall into. For example, you use Harold Bloom a lot in this video, but without ever exploring what biases and ideologies underlined his opinions and views-which is something you should do for every critic, regardless of what those biases and ideologies are, rather than just painting them as contextless truth sayers because you agree with their opinion. Sure, things like race and sexuality and gender have become more important lenses with which to analyze art over the past half century, especially as there’s been an increasing diversity within the sphere of critics, but I don’t see a problem with that. You can point to people who take a hard line and say that any piece of art with elements or themes that are problematic are worthless, but that’s not the prevailing view anywhere except maybe clickbait thinkpieces which have always existed primarily to garner attention for exaggeration. I’m probably more “woke” and certainly more left wing than most opinion piece writers, and I love classic literature and film. I think art is such a complex and multifaceted subject that it’s perfectly fine for it to be examined from a multitude of angles, not merely technical aspects, as much as I enjoy the technical aspects of filmmaking. Some people apply these types of analyses in superficial ways, and that’s always been the case for every sort of lens you could think of-in one of your other videos for example you joked about how a lot of people will hyper focus on tracking shots and other flashier techniques without engaging with anything deeper, but those people existing doesn’t invalidate analyzing film through a technical/aesthetic lens. I just really don’t think this is a huge problem (certainly not some unique problem, if anything just the same type of problem that’s always existed just with different focuses and standards), and it’s not ruining cinema, though I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the title of the video was just a bit of clickbait because that’s how the UA-cam algorithm works
@@joshuab9226 So is it your contention that when the vote was opened, everyone went, "Praise the Lord!" and started rapid-fingering the up-vote for that movie that, oh, did it star a woman? was it directed by a woman? did it have feminist messaging? Didn't even realize it, I've just been waiting for my chance to get this movie on a list because I watch it twice a year.
@@Moviewise but part of the reason why filmmakers like Kurosawa, Ozu and Ray were so widely celebrated by critics, filmmakers and film enthusiasts in Europe and the United States in the mid 20th century was they liked those film for being asian films. it wasn't like people evaluated Seven Samurai separate from it being a Japanese film. The context of a film being Japanese is something that has always been important to how a film is perceived even if it isn't the sole reason for a film's success. People have always liked the aesthetics, narratives and themes various directors from a variety of background can bring to a story. asian film representation was something that came about before women or black filmmakers were recognized partially because praising Japanese films felt safe to american and European white male audiences because they didn't have to worry about those directors undermining their monopoly on film production and film discourse in Europe and america. while critics were praising Kurosawa not a lot of asian-europeans and asian american filmmakers were getting work in this time period. a lot of asian films get on the top movies of all time list but no films by asian american or asian European films get on the list because historically asian European/americans were kept out of filmmaking. a desire and a aversion for diversity has always existed and has impacted film discussion forever. People have always wanted to see films told from a multitude of perspectives and it's unfair to dismiss that desire. Does it mean some films are initially over praised? yeah of course but they are usually forgotten about while films that are truly great stick around. Wonder Woman was called one of the greatest superhero films of all time when it came out and no one really remembers it six years later. Spiderman: into the spider verse was called one of the greatest superhero films of all time when it came out and it is still beloved five years later. both are "woke" movies but one stuck around and one was forgotten. the reason that films like beau travel and Jeanne Dielman continue to gain greater praise overtime is partially that they are films made by women and their perspectives from that background make both films very different than how most if not all men would approach the material but also because those films has images, narratives, characters and moments that people who have seen those films have never forgotten. is that ruining cinema? no if anything more films should be like them. if there is a issue with contemporary approaches to films about womanhood or race is that there is no willingness to potentially alienate the audience. Beau travel and Jeanne Dielman are both films that are willing to alienate or bore its audience and that makes them great films. films today are often obsessed with making sure that the audience is alert and focused at all times and that limits what films can be. films can longer be intentionally tedious. everything must be 100% captivating in a very specific way all the time. its not a matter of wokeness as much as it is a matter of commercialism.
The problem is people think the "content" is the film or the art. But while a profound or important theme doesn't translate necessarily into a "great film", while a great film can transform into a profound theme.
There’s a big difference between giving recognition to under-appreciated films, and seeking out films made by historically underrepresented people to make oneself look better.
That clip at 2:57, of Orson Welles getting shot -- is that from the unfinished film 'Orson's Bag' (a.k.a., 'One Man Band')? I guess the same question applies to that clip of him at whatever estate that is at 9:01.
Those clips are from the hilarious French film “La Classe Américaine”, which was made dubbing over clips from dozens of Warner Bros films. The Orson Welles footage was taken from the film “Start the Revolution Without Me”.
I have never even considered what gender the director of a film was, what does it ultimately matter? Putting such a focus on that these directors were women seems to me like they don't expect women to have as much the ability to create a great film as men, so they have to highlight it every time it happens, and that is why i find this decades list so counteractive to their point.
Female directors have a hard time getting their work taken seriously and some of them like Chantel Ackerman and Celine Sciamma make movies from a distinctly feminine pov, so yes it matters.
@@dylanmcdermott1110 Bullshit. If they make good stuff (like Point Break) then people will love their films and praise them. If they make tedious political agitprop like Jeanne Dielman they will get called out for it.
@@mowazeem644 Well like it or not, Jeanne Dielmann got enough votes to top the critics list and come in fourth on the directors list, so obviously there are many people in the film industry that love it. The fact that Point Break is a popular movie doesn't change the fact that female directors get less respect and fewer awards.
@@dylanmcdermott1110 What part of "the poll was changed" didn't you understand. If you change it enough and allow teens to form a block - I'm sure you could get 'The Goonies' and 'Home Alone' on the list. The list was changed to subvert the directors and critic's list. And you don't get respect for being a female and turning up, just as you don't for being a male - these are ingrained features you were born with, such as color. You get respect for devising or marshaling a script, for your collaboration with a composer, production designer and cinematographer. You get respect for your craft and artistry. And they get less reward because they have been in the game less and being a film director, away from family for extended periods, is highly destructive of family life - enhance the high divorce rate.
I don't understand what he's talking about at all. I thought it was a very well made film which conveys it's point in a very good fashion. Would I put it on the top 100? No. But calling it laughably bad is crazy to me
@@jacobb.9181 Seems clear to me that his political bias has seeped into his film criticism. How can you condemn so-called "woke" culture for damaging art without also condemning the right-wing fanaticism that bans books from libraries and schools and blames Hollywood for poisoning our children? This video looks like an audition for FOX News.
I strongly, strongly disagree with basically everything in this video. But chiefly I would object to your assertion that many of the films that rose substantially did so because of their politics and not on their merits as films. For starters: tastes and appreciations change over time and I think it's foolish to believe that re-evaluation of films is based on trend chasing or virtue signaling rather than a variety of legitimate factors. Things like exposure (Black Girl for example was only recently restored and re-released leading to a much wider audience and critical revisiting), influence, and even just change in tastes, generationally or otherwise, can all influence how we view films. There are numerous very good and valid reasons why these films may have risen in popularity among critics; many of which are much more obvious to point to than just "politics" (especially when so many of the worlds most acclaimed films already tended to espouse similar politics, yet no one claims that "Bicycle Thieves" is only on the list for its socialist sympathies) Secondly: I think that by delineating these movies as "woke" or "SJW" movies you're essentially doing what you accuse these S&S critics of doing: you've determined that you dislike the films politics and therefore are dismissive of them as art. I'm not saying you have to think these films are great or even like them; but that your criticism is so firmly couched in their political leanings (and indeed is the center-piece of your argument here) gives one the impression that something about the films politics rubbed you the wrong way and now you're looking for any reason to be scathing of them.
Using Moonlight as an example of films that focus on themes over aesthetic is crazy to me. Have you seen it?? Do you really think there was no effort put forth into the film's look? It's a beautiful film to watch!
It's aesthetic attraction and craftsmanship can be undercut by a foul and pretty evil message of social engineering. As Orwell once wrote, there is a class of people who think that the rest smell rank and are beneath them.
There are better movies directed by women than Jeanne Dielman. Examples: Daisies, The Piano, Toni Erdmann… Anyway, Satantango didn’t deserve to go down the list. Now THAT IS A MASTERPIECE.
Pffft, big deal. Tastes and perceptions change. What is considered "hot" in one decade can be seen as "not so hot" in another. A few movies that got pushed out are a pity, a few others (like Dreyer's dreadful final film) I'm glad to see let go. Same goes for the new entries. A few deserving newcomers, a few who have me baffled. Lists will flip all the time, and I'll bet S&S will have another #1 in ten years time. (Personally, I think there are far better movies in Hitchcock's catalogue than "Vertigo" and "Mulholland Drive" isn't Lynch's strongest work either, but hey. Also, "Greed" dropped out of the top 10 decades ago, and I still find it more amazing than most other movies that still happen to be in it.) Besides, there are more ways to judge a movie than just blocking and cinematography. The acting, the writing, the music - they're all playing a part too. There are a good number of films that may not be polished in their execution but whose rawness has a much bigger, if not even a longer lasting, impact than a meticulously put together Kubrick flick. There are more than just one or two criteria that make a great movie.
I agree with some of your concerns, especially when it seems modern culture puts a strong emphasis on messaging over everything. I don’t even want to call it a “woke” thing. Remember people were praising the recent Mario movie for being “anti-woke” a couple of months ago? That said I don’t think material such as theme should take a back seat. I’d argue that’s what made Vertigo stand the test of time. From a film making perspective Hitchcock has made other more technically proficient movies than Vertigo, and it’s script, especially from a plot perspective is a MESS. BUT! It’s themes of obsession are so perfectly realized and sticks with you well after the movie is over.
I’m glad you brought this up! I’ve always thought I downplayed theme a bit too much here. I should have just said that theme alone is not enough to make a film a masterpiece. What’s important is how deeply the story explores the theme; how ambitious and thematically complex is the screenplay. Indeed, the depth with which “Vertigo” explores obsession gives strength to the film, as do the multifaceted ways “The Godfather” and “Citizen Kane” explore power. It just seems too many people who should know better are basing their choices on theme alone, and highly specific themes at that (mainly race and sexuality). All the while ignoring technical/narrative elements or even if the theme is richly developed, as in the case of “Do the Right Thing” which does everything perfectly in my book.
@@Moviewise with you saying that, and I’ll preface this by saying Jeanne Dielman isn’t one of my favorite movies or anything, but it does explore its theme of domestication to a maddening degree and that’s why I think it has stuck around especially in cinephile circles. I’m not gonna pretend I know why critics picked the movies they picked. I don’t believe there should be a definitive guideline on what should or shouldn’t be allowed. As a film lover, I love things that get people talking, and at the end of the day that’s what these Sight and Sound poll is meant to do. So I can’t get too upset with it.
That "anti-woke" Mario push also came from the woke establishment though. It helped sell movie tickets to a nothing movie with zero anti-woke messaging whatsoever. If you can label a neutral movie as "anti-woke" and label woke movies as "normal" then you win the culture war because you normalize the woke ideology while setting expectations extremely low for criticism of that ideology. In other words the left is taught not to be satisfied with a movie unless it pushes extreme far left values, but the right is taught to celebrate movies just for doing nothing. That ensures the right will always lag behind. Sound of Freedom was not much different. Maybe if that movie was about an activist who was working against the gay movement, and the movie made a sophisticated argument for that being a good thing, it would be the right wing equivalent of a typical far left woke movie which use sophisticated arguments to push their views, but going after pedos is almost as accepted on the left as the right so that was another false marketing campaign. It wasnt an anti-woke movie it was a centrist movie. Mario was a slightly left of center movie. The anti-woke crowd does not get movies made for them, period. They just get tricked sometimes into supporting the lesser of two evils.
@@punchforpound2808 what are you talking about? I didn’t see anyone in the industry pushing it as “anti-woke”. It was mostly just a bunch of lame internet culture warriors who make money making clickbait youtube thumbnails. This sort of 4D chess shit you laid out here, is kind of stupid.
@@punchforpound2808 American cinema has always been fascist propaganda, vigilantism, war movies, wild west movies...it's just the normal, default possition for you because you're effectively brainwashed, wich was the point, so when you see liberal propaganda (wich is if anything center right going by current standards as understood in the context of pop political culture but in reality is something VERY different) it feels so alien and intolerable to you. TLDR: "Anti woke" is how american media has been always, you have plenty of propaganda to explore if you wish.
I love your videos man, and I think you should give Black Girl and Sembène more credit. One thing that's missing from both your analysis and the "woke mob" you push against, is this idea of "historical context," which matters greatly, and always has! Part of the reason Citizen Kane, for example, is so remarkable isn't merely its own aesthetic merits but what those aesthetic merits mean given its cinematic context. Leaving characters' faces in shadow, for example, was radical and unthinkable in Hollywood at the time... Likewise, Sembène achieved some groundbreaking and intellectually rich films when there was very little cinematic or cultural apparatus to support him. That said, I do find it strange and suspect that Black Girl is the one people love so much, when Sembène made far better films later in his career. Mad props for mentioning Yeleen, a brilliant and sadly unseen film. Also make sure to watch Soleil O by Med Hondo, the greatest African film!
"Leaving characters' faces in shadow, for example" - no, completely wrong. That dates back to the teens when Cecil B. DeMille used it. 'Wuthering Heights' (1939), 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame' (1939), 'The Long Voyage Home' (1940), 'All That Money Can Buy (1941), etc, also had that kind of lighting. Even the deep focus and shots of ceilings had been used too. It's Kane's elan that makes them feel new.
@@bobbyjosson4663 Thanks for these references! Clearly leaving faces in shadows wasn't unprecedented in 1941, but it also wasn't widely used we can agree... Regardless, this is merely 1 example. My point stands, that historical context and aesthetic merit are hard things to untangle.
You said it! Movies are being pushed because they fit with critics' INTERESTS and not because of anything related to cinema itself! It's like they forgot what they work with
You literally described what critics have always done. You only have a problem with it now because it doesn’t always align with your white male interests.
This reminds me of when "Beasts of the Southern Wild" got so much attention. So, we rented it from Blockbuster. And it was terrible. Meanwhile, Jane Campion makes a film every few years, and they are interesting, challenging and, often, dense. But worth your time. Godfather II kicked off the list? Seriously? At the same time, since we know this is BS, who cares? This reminds me of all those shows on TV about "ancient aliens". And eventually, they seem to always return to the sarcophagus lid found at Palenque, which is supposed to show a Mayan king steering a spaceship. And it's all nonsense. Look up the symbolism of the figures on the sarcophagus lid, and you'll see the claims of it depicting a spaceship are nonsense. Anyway, the backlash has begun, and, as always, the pendulum will swing too far in the other direction.
Real cinema is fine, because true cinema is an artform and art for the most part is beyond petty classifications. What is happening to Hollywood pop culture is just the pendulum moving with mass trends as it always has. Don't confuse cinema with Hollywood blockbusters and franchisees.
Yes but isnt this list SUPPOSED to be about "real cinema"? Do we need to have a new category "real" "real cinema" because cinema and "real cinema" have been coopted by the main stream? What if a woman somewhere is stopped from making actual great cinema because she has seen that all she needs to do to succeed is make her movie feminist and fill it with minorities? Thats a disservice to humanity at large.
For me there is good writing and bad writing, good representation of ideas and bad representation of ideas, good representation of reality or bad representation of reality, good and well-rounded representation of a character's needs and motives and strengths and shortcomings or bad and lacking or illogical representation thereof, a multifaceted and deep interpretation of the world given or a monocausal and shallow one. These are categories that can be precisely argued, each on its own, and you can use these to analyse a movie on different levels using these, and people will easily understand what you are talking about and how you arrive at your as session - whether they will agree or not is a different matter, but you will be able to have clear and civil and concinct discussions. Now "woke" or "not woke", what's that even supposed to mean? Seems like everyone I ask has their own definition of the term, and each definition throws together a bunch of the more precise categories I mentioned above, and tries to jam them into ONE and the same thing. And most people won't even give a clear answer to an objective hierarchy of or formula or algorithm logic by which they balance and weigh these more precise categories against each other when making a claim to whether something is woke or not. Many people won't have definition at all, their argument begins and ends with "oh, you know exactly what I mean, don't pretend you don't, you must see it" which is the dumbest pseudo-argument ever. It is as if I said, you know exactly what I mean when I say that movie is uru4frj, don't act like you don't, I refuse to define uru4frj. "Woke" mainly seems to be a subjective gut feeling people don't want to or are unable to put into words, a purely emotional reaction; but it is completely useless to even start to argue the inherent(?) or arbitrary(?) merits or destructiveness of "woke" when there is no common grounds on what it means. It will just emotionalize, confuse, distract, convolute and obscure and derail the whole debate BEFORE you even start talking about the object at hand that you try to categorize at such. It also does not help an analysis if you don't dissect by one criterion alone to get a really sharp closeup, but by several criteria at once to spread out your matter into several directions at once never focusing at a thing. You don't use a triple ball and chain beset with several razors on each ball to dissect a complex organism, you use a single razor. "woke" / "not woke" will just mess things up and blur your standards.
I have two definitions of Woke: 1) "Woke" is a loosely-affiliated, anti-liberal, left-authoritarian political movement primarily originating in the United States which applies a Marxist conflict theory lens to demographics. It rejects democratic concepts of individualism, universalism, objectivity, and meritocracy, instead believing that the demographic category is the fundamental unit of society and essentialist determinate of personal identity. These demographic categories are typically reduced to binary oppositions (e.g.: white vs. other, men vs. other, straight vs. other, cis vs. other). The opposite of "wokeness" is "whiteness," * which is the term used by the woke for broad Western liberal democratic values including individualism, universalism, objectivity, meritocracy, legal and property rights, rational linear thought, science, democracy, rule of law, marriage and the nuclear family, capitalism, Christianity, politeness, and the framework of human rights. "Wokeness" replaces the concept of human rights with the concept of privilege and oppression experienced by the demographic category as a demographic category, e.g.: a homeless white man experiences white privilege while a rich Black man experiences Black oppression. "Wokeness" is not an extension of the traditional liberal and civil rights discourses of the 1960's through 2000's, but rather a loosely-affiliated left-authoritarian movement coordinated between different sub-movements such as third and fourth-wave feminism, queer theory and queer liberation, Black power, Anti-racism, Communist and Marxist organizations, Islamofascism, and the critical studies disciplines. As outlined by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic in their textbook "Critical Race Theory: An Introduction": "The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power... Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law." 2) People who want to ethnically cleanse Jews but call YOU a Nazi if you didn't like a movie. ** * c.f. Smithsonian National Museum of African-American History and Culture chart on Whiteness that was removed because it was racist to anyone who wasn't white. ** This is, I admit, a much more recent definition, but Woke people walked themselves right into it.
Someone could make a argument that Jeanne dielman is a Very good representation of humanity, you could even make a argument that the more realistic filmes are, the least interest they become.
@@felipebartole6461 I could easily make the argument that Michael Bay and his hype kinetic editing is far more realistic than Jean Dielman. I can assure you that if a person sits down to peel a potato, the potato vanishes immediately, and one begins to imagine all sorts of things; doing laundry, having sex, the last time they had a good beer, that thing their friend said to them on the phone last night, that time their best friend fell out of tree and broke both arms. The experience of peeling a potato is not at all captured by Chantal Akerman, the visual of what that looks like on the outside is capture, but is the interior of it captured, especially by that very still performance. My grandmother spoke to herself all the time when she was doing something like cooking or cleaning, because the mind is constantly at work. I smile and laugh out of nowhere when I am alone, I sigh, I fidget. I would use that scene as an example of how unrealistic films can be, not how realistic they are.
Sure, woke cinema may be a problem but AT LEAST it has helped END sexism in our culture, and it's not like the barrage of painfully unlikable, annoying, pedantic, aggressive, hypocritical "strong" female characters we've seen these past few years in the name of feminism is going to have ANY negative effect on how people view women, because it's not like media shapes our view of the world or anything like that... (for the easily offended and the mildly illiterate, yes, that's sarcasm)
I am glad you mentioned "Get Out" which has to be the most over rated film this decade. The fact that it makes the list and a masterpiece like "Rosemary's Baby" does not says a lot about the current state of film criticism and knowledge.
@@juliussw9153 It's a classic and though I like lists - ranking one above the other is counter-productive. Having a pantheon is far more production and constructive. Classics, semi-classics, good entertainments, minor works and the rest.
Sight and Sound's Top 5 next time 1) Deep Throat (1972) 2)Taboo (1980) 3) Salo: 120 Days of Sodomy (1975) 4) Pink Flamingoes (1972) 5) My Beautiful Laundrette (1985)
@@mahatmaniggandhi2898 I was thinking of putting Warhol’s 8-hour avante garde epic Empire (1965) in the top 5. but at least one Brackage film would be in the top 10. Interestingly, Brackage’s Anticipation of the Night (1958) title perfectly describes the time progression in Warhol’s Empire.
There may still be great writers out there but the producers won't hire them because they aren't 'woke'. I miss the old studio system where they had dedicated departments to be historically correct, wardrobe departments for any era, scritwriters on retainer, a semi-permanente acting company, producers who produced every day and directors they supported. Directors like Clint Eastwood have recreated parts of that and he makes good movies. Thanks for naming the evil I was seeing in modern ratings. We are not being informed by these new polls, we are being manipulated.
Well, I'm glad you did this, Mr. Wise. You bring a Bloomian mastery and love to your work. I was a literature grad student and I had this identity politics nonsense shoved down my throat endlessly. I learned nothing. Thankfully, I have recovered a lot with the help of your channel. Thank you, sir 👍
An involuntary exclaim of "What!" burst out when I saw Godfather II eliminated. Then....Then...Upon seeing Lawrence of Arabia elminated I fell into a silence, a cold sweat came over me - a slight sickened feeling falling through my throught and stomach - that such a reality could exist, and that I am trapped within it.
I've always thought Daisies was the greatest film ever made by a woman; subversive and feminist without being preachy or tedious, but having style and inspiration and imagination to burn. It is so clearly and vastly superior to Jeanne Dielman that there's no contest. I would even be OK with it being number one because at least it's a movie that uses all the resources of cinema in an original, enlightening and entertaining way.
What is so good about "subversive and feminist" when those tools were created not to liberate by to divide and disintegrate, the same way and my the same folks that have bought Post Modernism, Critical Race Theory and now, Tran Ideology (self proclamation of your new gender changes it). Just because it has style or a wit or is more skilled doesn't make it's dark soul any more palatable. It's the same with Griffith's 'Birth of a Nation', 'Intolerance', and the latter 'Triumph of the Will'.
I'm kind of intrigued: is there a meaningful reason why Lubistch is in Plato's place, pointing to the world of ideas, while Ford stands for Aristotle, driving attention to the earthy realm? Or it just looked cool that way, with the cigar and the pipe pointing at each other?
Actually yes, thanks for asking! Lubitsch is known for his subtlety, for making shots that insinuate rather than reveal, for suggesting what is happening in offscreen territory. Thus, ideas. John Ford is known for his pictorialism and use of landscapes, for showing action and rituals upfront. Thus, empiricism. They fit well as Plato and Aristotle that way. I wish I had had the time to put a director’s head on every visible character that pertains. It would have been a fun exercise.
@@Moviewise Makes perfect sense. It's so cool that you put so much thought into a throwaway gag. As for the other characters, I've been doing some research. According to Wikipedia, the only one in that particular portion of the painting (apart from the central figures) who is supposed to be a historical person is the guy in the green robe, who stands for Socrates. In so far as he's regarded as the founder of Western philosophy (or modern ancient Western philosophy, if that makes sense), I reckon that he should bear the head of Mr. D. W. Griffith.
@@marknewbold2583 everything is political if you happen to put it in that context, but the THING is that for some people it is the only important context
That Yale Professor speaking about the "school of resentment" and socio-political themes/subjects dominating English lit, as it's taught in college is absolutely not wrong. It was around the same year as this Charlie Rose interview, 1994, that the English department at my little college adopted a new text for Eng. 101 and 102 students. Replacing essays like "A Modest Proposal" or speeches like The Gettysburg Address were essentially 'PC' hit pieces like "What's Really In Your Toothpaste" and something about how Sci-Fi is permeated with sexism. I shit you not, these were the subjects/titles of the essays. I personally had done a lot of writing about socio-political matters and opined on current events for my school's paper, and the fanzine world that I was part of; and I was typically left-of-center about this. But even with that I was taken more-than aback by what was being presented to us as the 'peak' of thought and rhetoric. I was young, but I still understood that there's a difference between writing about contemporary affairs, and creating something that can speak to distant generations and cultures. This was the beginning of the era of bullshit. Fortunately--and this isn't a low-key brag--I was/am humanist enough to continue to seek out and experience Classical art/poetry/cinema/literature from cultures around the world. Whether it's the Tao, the Koran, Sufi Poetry, books from the Old & New Testament, African choral and drum music (plus Jazz), classic (and contemporary) works from Japan, Iranian cinema, Russian cinema, Italian cinema, etc.--things that use contemporary elements as vehicles to make timeless, almost-transcendental points, rather than limit the 'wisdom' to the confines of the modern issue. Good luck!
Must say... you possess a great deal of knowledge when it comes to cinema...thirsty and hunger to learn more...please keep making such incredible videos.
I really take issue with your arguments regarding Daughters of the Dust and Black Girl. First of all, you really think that the world's most prestigious critics and directors are getting their opinions on the best films of all time from references in a Beyonce music video? See how silly that sounds? As for Black Girl, you say it would not get a passing grade "anything relating to the art of cinema." But why? You certainly never mention Man With a Movie Camera, a 1929 movie that certainly would not get a "passing grade" in any modern film class. The same goes for Un Chien Andalou, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Battleship Potemkin... oh wait, maybe these films weren't chosen simply for how good they are by today's standards, but perhaps by how influential they are! But you take issue with Black Girl because it is "woke" (code for: has a Black protagonist and talks about colonialism). The double standard is ridiculous. Also, Black Girl has been widely considered a classic film by critics for years, it's not like it just popped out of nowhere. Sure, you have every right to dislike it but that doesn't mean that cinema has "gone woke."
They changed the polling criteria so these aren't the most prestigious critics and directors view. The Beyonce bit was a joke but irony and satire are lost on the brainwashed. And most of those films you mentioned are classics I and most exposed to them either love or admire for their artistry. Nothing woke can ever be any good, and is promoted by the new puritans. And if you can't see the crappy, obvious, virtue signalling and blatant messaging in the New Woke Hollywood.
Talking about colonialism in a onesided way is a red flag though. Does it mention all the good things about colonialism or just onesided negatives? Because that's not honest or balanced. It would be like including a movie on the list just for mentioning African cannibalism, without mentioning all the good things about Africa. You can find dirt on anyone but that's not the same as telling the whole truth. Even if it's a good movie, why did it jump so quickly on the list as wokeness has gotten popular? Thats his point. It can be a classic movie but there are thousands of classic movies. Is it better than Godfather II and so on... or is it just trendy?
I'm glad I'm not the only one who suspected this. I was long looking forward to the new Sight and Sound list and never imagined it was going to be used as yet another vehicle for forced wokeness. The worst thing is that this woke stunt will cause harm to Jeanne Dielman's film. If that movie appeared as number one twenty or even only ten years ago when the PC brigade weren't acting like a cult, it would have been seen as more genuine because the motivation behind it was to vote for the greatest. Now, it seems un-coincidental given the woke times happening today to the point where the film is going to be labelled unfairly as 'woke' and even avoided as a result. I have not seen that film and would love to see it given as it appeared in one of the previous Sight and Sound polls, I may or not agree whether it is better than Citizen Kane or Vertigo, but at least I know my personal decision would be whether it deserves the 'greatness' spot and not motivated by pathetic political box ticking. Sight and sound has ALWAYS been diverse - diversity of FILM in fact. Something that Hollywood doesn't seem to understand these days.
@@avillianchillinskrillian Because ten years ago, 'wokeness' was a concept completely alien to me. Yes, I was aware of things like political correctness going too far but not to the point where it has become the cultural beast like it is today. A film overtaking Citizen Kane at the time would definitely have had me wanting to check it out in a heart beat, Jeanne Dielman or not. I would have had the mindset that the very poll itself was the result of how it has always been since 1952 - critics and directors voting for the sake of cinema itself. Today, because so much seems to be revolving around diversity politics, including the way Hollywood placed new rules on what would qualify to receive an Oscar nomination, the problem being is that cinematic art is overlooked in favour of how many diversity boxes that are ticked. This pattern keeps repeating so often these days that it is too easy to draw the same conclusion to 2022 Sight and Sound poll. There wasn't really that problem ten years ago. It just feels too much of a coincidence for Jeanne Dielman, a feminist film, to suddenly appear at the very top. Again, this is not to crap on the film, I'm still yet to see it and, who knows, I might think it is a better movie than Kane or Vertigo, but it needs to be on cinematic grounds and not on diversity politics.
@@Selrisitai To be fair, it did sound like a reasonable question for me to happily answer despite its tone. The second person was just plain rude. Side note: I have watched Jeanne Dielman. I liked it, I don't mind the slow pace (if you've seen a few Bela Tarr movies then anything's a fast film lol) and I do get the point of it and why critics put a vote on it, but BEST FILM??? Erm.... nope. If it had been the other feminist movie, Daisies, which is way more fun and experimental, then I'd be more happy with that being number one in the critic's poll. This aside, I personally prefer the director's poll and have 2001: A Space Odyssey in first place.
@@chrisneon1220 nah, it fits. You’re letting a simple word or concept that you don’t like affect you emotionally and prevent you from getting at the merits of an argument.
@@howardroark3736 using “woke” as an argumentative point is not helpful and annoying imagine if I said “The Dodgers have gone woke for letting Jackie Robinson play baseball with them”
While I don't disagree on the list jumping part, I do find this video to be a bit far into the hatemongering over nothing camp in other places. Like, it's fine to not like Get Out, but it kind of feels like you're saying the only reason people liked it was because of its politics, when I mean, it's a decent movie in my books, and I'm not particularly politically minded one way or the other (though I do find any side that starts acting crazy or hating on others for no reason to be one I shy away from). So overall I think I'm saying while I've enjoyed your comments on cinema in the other videos I've watched of yours, I think this is where I part ways with your channel. I hope you have a nice life and thanks for sharing your directorial related insights with us! I also hope you don't hate others for their ethnicities/genders/sexualities/identities or what have you, and that if you do that you gain a bit more empathy for others. Peace!
The point of the video is that he disagrees with people seemingly focusing on immutable characteristics of the creators when choosing films to vote for and your conclusion is that he might be the hateful one?
@@LordBaktor I already said I agreed with the list jumping part, but even if I didn't I don't see how that's born out of hate, more a misguided attempt at equality gone wrong. As for my conclusion, my comment dealt in hypotheticals and "if"s, as there's nothing conclusive in this video that points to the creator being an angry hatemonger, but the overall tone of this video, the use of the word woke, and the bit where he bursts out laughing in a mocking way at Get Out's fictional premise of "white vampirism" like that bit of its writing was supposed to be treated as non-fiction and was somehow something to be taken at face value and thus mocked, all combined to a bit of a red flag feel that made me feel like something might be off with this guy in a sad way. So I politely gave my feedback, thanked them for the videos where he doesn't hatemonger, wished him a nice life, and parted ways. Hope that helps clarify things for ya!
I don't understand why people are complaining. Critics used to think one thing, now they think another. In 10 years they will think something else. The list reflects the opinions of the critics polled at that time.
No it doesn’t, the list reflects the assault on culture by woke activists, who have both infiltrated critical circles and used bullying and intimidation to make apolitical critics fall in line. There’s nothing organic about Jeanne Dielman shooting to the top, and it turns Sight & Sound into a joke.
So lists like tat have absolutely zero worth because they just represent the zeitgeist instead of choosing movies that are timeless, lol. Your answered your question.
One of his points was the list used to change slowly as people re-evaluated the contribution of films to history. Recent changes have been far more dramatic, suggesting a radical re-evaluation rather than just attitudes changing across decades. "Greatest film of all time" lists shouldn't be changing dramatically from year to year.
You won't like this comment, but - maybe you could do a follow-up video where you try to define what this "woke culture" which is supposedly ruining cinema actually is, and where most people's understanding of the term comes from? Feels like you missed a trick when you were researching this one.
I like many of your videos and a lot about your perspective towards film direction especially. But this video illuminates how limited and rigid your perspective on what makes great art is. Why should physical impressiveness inherently outweigh actual current resonance in the case of The General vs. Get Out. The list is a snapshot of the time it's made, and this idea of representation (though I too see flaws in the logic of it) is clearly part of the current climate so more diverse critics and directors were polled. I personally would put on Get Out any day over The General.
The underlying problem is really an age old one. Behind all that has been called 'wokeness' or 'political correctness' (or 'school of resentment,' in Harold Bloom's terms) is something that, in more recent lingo, has instead been best captured by the phrase 'virtue signalling' -- namely, HYPOCRISY; i.e., the preoccupation with surface-level APPEARANCES above all other considerations; thus, with the APPEARANCE of being virtuous rather than the real thing. If only we had a culture of 'influencers' who truly were concerned with matters of justice. Instead, all they're really after is TO BE SEEN AS being so motivated (and/or being seen as in the same, 'right,' crowd as those who are seen as being so motivated) -- which is a far cry from the real thing -- together with the clout and 'cultural capital' which are thereby garnered. Someone in antiquity is reputed to have advised that we 'pray in secret, fast in secret, give alms in secret,' as the sincerity involved in any of these activities is immediately thrown into doubt when they're turned into matters of public display. That remains true in this case.
My only major issue is that the rhetoric around feminism in the current era is, ironically, eurocentric. The aching boredom of Jeanne Dielman is treated like a horror story but I can't see it resonating at all because women today are far more disconnected from that 19th-20th century housewife experience. Maybe it's some sort of larping. Story doesn't even matter, no westerner can possibly identify with Black Girl except as some form of exploitation porn that can be lived through vicariously. Parajanov is gone because his movies cannot be lived through vicariously by the viewer because they have no real basis for understanding it, since they're unwilling to come to the film on his terms. They want it to fit according to what they want to experience. People treat Black Girl like Sembène's only movie, which is a bit weird since Mandabi is a much better expression of the struggles of contemporary Africans in execution. The main character is not a blank slate to live through, and he's a bit crude and backwards because he does represent a real person in Africa, with all the flaws inherent to his culture. Same issue you find with Taxi Driver where people react with something along the lines of "I can't relate to this character" as if that's the point of film(???)
Not to mention that it's very unusual for a _person_ to be in the home, alone, in the dead silence, preparing a meal. I think it was propaganda even when it was first made.
@@Selrisitai not at all unusual. My mother and her mother would have done that. It's a magnificent film and also has the greatest screen performance by Delphine Seyrig.
Glad for the concluding section where we get to acknowledge that not all changes are for the worse. I, too, am glad to see the growing appreciation for 'Mulholland Drive,' which I've been a fan of since the time of its release. (Have yet to see 'In the Mood for Love.) And though it's all the way down at # 78, I'll add that I'm glad to see the 1974 release 'Celine and Julie Go Boating' make the list for the first time.
strong disagree. nobody is capable of putting aside bias and judging a film purely on technique and aesthetic merit. critics have never done this. the story is what actually effects audiences. cinema is the most subjective artform. anyone who says otherwise is pushing an agenda, including you.
This guy has such a limited perspective of what makes a movie good. And I mean on a stylistic level, though I disagreee with the thesis of this video in almost every way (almost), what startles me most is how stodgy this perspective is. What really matters is how "fluid the editing is" I'm sorry I call bullshit. Unfluidity, or jarring cutting is a staple of great cinema, many of the terrible "loses" from this list feature it. And thats just one example. Black girl, jeanne dielman, beau travail, if you critique these on the grounds of their inclusion only on the grounds of representation, you too are flattening them as pieces of art, removing them from their context, ignoring their style, and their use of film form. All of which, are extraordinarily interesting uses of cinemas language. And, affecting and "profoundly" plotted (whatever the fuck that means). This is as demeaning to the field of criticism as those you (are rightly) suspicious and critical of.
The video never dismisses Jeanne Dielman or Beau Travail as for their filmic style, it only says their rise comes at a suspicious time when critics talk too much about affirmative action, so they're probably not honoring them for anything cinematic. Actually he talks positively about the visuals and the plot of Jeanne Dielman and compares them to other films without feminist themes that fell down the list
Wow, you really didn't get any of the video. Triggering can be like that when you've been brainwashed in a cult. The poll was rigged by changing the criteria of inclusion. The same way that, in a smaller way, they added together the votes of the first two Godfather films to dethrone Citizen Kane.
Fluid editing just means good editing and can include dramatic 'jarring cuts' as long as the purpose of the edit serves the arc and aesthetic that is the film. None of those films come close to masterpieces like Godfather II or Lawrence.
I understand directors are trying to not make the Spike Lee mistake by listing there favourites as male. However you are packaging these films as undeserving because of the the directors race, sexuality and sex.
Just because you don't see what is so great about a movie does not mean that everyone else is the same. You are as guilty as the so-called 'woke' critics in presenting a narrow idea of What Movies Should Be. Besides, Jeanne Dielman is a structuralist masterpiece that builds upon the works of avant-garde filmmakers like Michael Snow into a movie that forces the viewer to re-evaluate female spaces, their own temporal relationship to watching movies and presents a viewing experience that is unique. On top of whatever rules you ascribed to Good Filmmaking during your spiel. Something Akerman did 20 years before Satantango, for the record.
I’ve seen people say that if somebody even uses the term woke, they instantly assume that person has sexist and racist beliefs 🙄 But this video makes your last video make much more sense! :)
That's because it's extremely convenient. Eliminate your opposition by just fabricating charges to associate with their beliefs. "If they say they believe in God, they hate their mothers, so just be aware of that." It's complete foolishness. Try _asking_ someone who doesn't like wokeness and see if you agree that they are sexist and/or racist.
@@Selrisitai have a look at the history of the word "woke" in current usage. You will see how racism is at the very heart of all the whining about it. Being politically aware is not something to be encouraged by the critics of wokeness. Having empathy and finding common ground with humanity is woke
@@marknewbold2583 WHich is precisely why it was good to fire all of the white men with decades of experience in the film craft and replace them with new, inexperienced people who look different, to give us all of the movies now which are much better for humanity
A few clips here and there doesn't prove anything. It would probably take hours to go through any film to compare it with another, and that's even if you agree on the criteria. Undoubtedly some people would be persuaded by your rhetoric. Or should I say, your Pathos.
Any of these critics could come up with 100 films worthy of being on the list. So when selecting only ten, other factors *have to* be considered. I think most critics want a list that's diverse in terms of genre, period and nationality. So why not include gender in that as well? The first number one, by the way, was Bicycle Thieves, which was also clearly a political choice. The whole point of the S&S list was originally to make a list that was different from the standard lists.
I do agree… but, I don’t think you are ever going to find a single critic who would consider Daughters of the Dust better than Lawrence of Arabia or Godfather Part II
I understand that you are trying feed the algorithm, but this video title is eye-rollingly stupid compared to the video titles you normally use. I love formal interpretations of an art form. I understand you need views to support the channel and this is a buzzword. Too bad though, because your discussion of film elements outside of buzzwords is so good
Hurt Locker was a plitical film. And it won the Oscars so the US could boohoo about how they were suffering as they waged war to seize oil that didn't belong to them
everything you say at 7:19 is wrong because all those technical aspects can all be on point but if the story/script is off the film cant be good. it can have great editing and cinematography etc but it wont be great if the story is off. on the other hand, a film can be extremely limited in terms of technical aspects. amateur editing,shoddy photography amateur equipment etc.... and it can be great. all on the strength of the story/script. story/script is more important than anything else. also art and literature has always been used as a way for the marginalized to tell their stories this isnt anything new.
But you're confusing the story with the script. The first thing that popped in my mind was that Sienfeld episode where they're waiting for a table at the restaurant. That's it, the whole story. They don't even get the table. They wait a half hour then give up. But the script is flawless. These are two completely different machines in a work, one is optional, while the other is bedrock. Lol. But now I'm thinking of that animated show, Primal. It's a caveman and a dinosaur who grunt and growl at eachother, yet a story is told. Meh. Whatever.
I mean have you ever considered that the reappraisal is at least partially deserved? The fact is, while maybe people are distorting these films rankings a little too high, they may well have been too low before, due to discrimination. What im trying to say is the pendulum is swinging in the other direction, as it should do, and soon itll come to a rest at a truly objective and fair viewpoint. I hope. Also, you seem to rank style as tantamount to a movies quality. I personally dont agree, and I think themes and story ARE incredibly important and SHOULD be considered by critics, even if they shouldn't be the only thing considered. I love your other videos, but this just feels strangely reactionary, and doesnt say anything about great cinema or analyze how its created whatsoever. Dissapointing.
Okay, I dig your videos, but throwing fine films like BLACK GIRL, GET OUT, DAUGHTERS OF THE DUST and MOONLIGHT under the woke bus tells me maybe your critical radar gets just as jammed over "black" subjects as that of the wokesters.
He could of made his point clear. He never mentions how directors are afraid to not include female directors. They could get cancelled like the Spike Lee incident when he listed only males.@@richardcahill1234
At this rate, "Who Killed Captain Alex" will be the greatest film of all time in the next survey. How much you wanna bet none of the people rating "Black Girl" so highly have never seen it, based solely on the title and caption?
Some of these films were elevated because their message is now recognized as timely and important when in the past it (perhaps unfairly) was not. I think this is legitimate and disagree that an analysis of the strength of a film should completely ignore story and theme and consist entirely of technical analysis. The films traditionally in the top 10 are not just there because they’re technically great but ALSO because people over time have thought the films had something important to say. We have always given films a big boost because of the perceived strength and importance of their message. It’s just that now different messages are being recognized as important.
I wonder if the changing movie selections are Reflective of greater participation by female critics & reviewers? Not that woke or post-modernist philosophy isn’t a significant contributing factor, but the movies that drop in popularity (e.g. apocalypse now, the searchers, etc..) seem to be “masculine“ movies featuring war, heroics, bravery, great men. These are almost universally replaced with movies highlighting “feminine“ attributes that may appeal to an increasing number of participating females.
Never worry, since we are paying it - they are starving themselves out... Just today a video of Hollywoodites crying about their unpaid bills, thousands laid off, stocks plumeting - they tried to stick it to us and ended up sticking it to themselves.
I don’t care if it’s true or not. I loathe the culture wars and am really disappointed it’s been raised here. Either side of the argument is just boring to me and until now Ive been enjoying this series of videos.
It's a clickbait title and framing of the argument that undermine's the credibility of the channel, but other than that it's another good video. The problem is that "woke culture" is lazy short hand used exclusively by clowns no serious person should want to be associated with.
I thought Get Out was sooo bad. When it started getting all of this praise I thought I was losing my mind but then it just kept happening and I realized what was going on. Jordan Peele does not make good movies
Who still cares about S&S in 2023? The last couple of years their sales have crashed and burned massively, even before the pandemic. With the publication of their revisioned top 100 list, they lost the little credibility they had left. So long S&S, you had a great run. But now your magazine has become as redundant as Playboy. Great history, no future!
I found your political views cringe-worthy right from the beginning, but the moment you completely lost credibility was when you referred to Sembène's work as laughable and amateurish.
I feel like we should like films because of our opinions on them, nothing is objectively good, but liking something in cinema when the reason has nothing to do with cinema makes no sense
And, of course, it's happening more and more with video games as well. I have already been fooled into buying a game that sucks because of woke reviews fooled me into believing it was a good game. Never again will I believe reviews.
Funny how being more inclusive of the opinions and stories beyond white men’s becomes a “woke” problem for people who don’t care to include them. There is nothing about Vertigo that is objectively better than every other film ever made. I personally found it boring, beautiful, but boring with very little to say beyond “white man is obsessed with white woman to the point where he forces her to become someone for his own pleasure and she does it…willingly” lol There’s plenty of better films about clinically mentally ill people. Citizen Kane is also boring and has a far too long run time for a film that also really has nothing to say aside from, “Hey! Look at how technically sound my cinematography is!” Wes Anderson does it better, but of course Orson should get credit for doing it before him and with inferior technology-but that doesn’t make it better to watch.
New sub here, so you may have addressed this within a different video (but a cursory glance at your back-catalogue didn't furnish any results); have you considered making a video on the Oscar's new Best Picture rules that will come into effect this upcoming season? The ones where you literally cannot get nominated for that category if you have white men in your main roles until they calculate a percentage of how many supporting and background characters are women and/or minorities, or unless your script talks about a message the mainstream zeitgeist approves? Is this a new form of Hays Code being created before our very eyes?
I really disagree with your views on this topic. Opinions are subjective, and tastes change with time. You seem to be arguing for an objective valuation of cinematic art.
No, truly great art has sublime beauty and touches all. Our approach to appreciating it is subjective. Otherwise, a Mr. Moto b picture is as good as anything ever made. The idea that art is subjective was concocted in a think tank. The same way Modern Art and Jackson Pollack was sponsored by them. There are documentaries and books on the subject. A Chaplin, Keaton and Llyod silent comedy shown to kids had the same effect it did on it's release. I've converted friends to classic black and white films and TV shows. That is the whole essence of a classic, something timeless and as good as the day it was released.
Yeah, beauty isn’t subjective. Beauty and the quality of art can be difficult to judge. But they’re not subjective. It’s a bit like saying any random object is equally beautiful compared to the Mona Lisa. The people who think art and beauty are purely subjective have usually never created art. I don’t know how you could find motivation to produce your best creative work if you really believed it was completely subjective and that no standards need apply.
The color of pomegranates is clearly an anti colonialist film too but Armenians are light skinned and western critics can’t find Armenia on a map so it goes in the trash 🗑️
I find it curious that people always talk about changes in the status quo as politically/ideologically influenced but don’t consider whether the previous status quos were also politically/ideologically influenced. Why is the classic canon list viewed as completely apolitical and neutral? Why are the critics of yesterday and their criteria considered non-ideological? And also why do these lists even matter? How is them being imperfect and biased (like they literally always were given that critics have always been imperfect and biased and influenced by the political/ideological landscape they exist in) “destroying cinema”? Why should one set of criteria be considered an objective way to judge art and why should that set of criteria be set in stone even if art is so much more complicated then merely technical acuity (or the adherence to certain ideals of technical acuity)?
I find a lot of your videos interesting even if I don’t always agree, but I don’t think this one makes a proper argument, mostly just pointing to the fact that something (in this case a list) has changed with the main proof of this being a problem simply being that things have changed.
Ok, you implied the previous set of criteria was as biased as the current one, so what was the bias? If it was white-European, why were there so many Asian films in the list? If it was male and straight, why were Akerman and Claire Denis there at all? Can you honestly say you never noticed critics and artists in the last decade elevating minority filmmakers in fear they’d be criticized if they didn’t? Do you seriously believe that race, genre and sexuality are not taken into account today more than they were ten years ago?
@@Moviewise just because a bias exists, that doesn’t mean that there will never be exceptions in a list. I hardly think that two woman-directed films being on the previous list disproves the idea that different standards and ideas about gender roles and relations in the past affected art criticism in the past much like how evolving ideas and standards on those things affect modern day criticism. And I never said that those were the only biases or criteria, just that they were part of a complex set of biases which could be explored, just like one could explore the complex set of biases and worldviews which influence modern criticism. My point was that it makes no sense to view today’s ecosystem as unique in having biases, which is a mistake that a lot of people fall into. For example, you use Harold Bloom a lot in this video, but without ever exploring what biases and ideologies underlined his opinions and views-which is something you should do for every critic, regardless of what those biases and ideologies are, rather than just painting them as contextless truth sayers because you agree with their opinion.
Sure, things like race and sexuality and gender have become more important lenses with which to analyze art over the past half century, especially as there’s been an increasing diversity within the sphere of critics, but I don’t see a problem with that. You can point to people who take a hard line and say that any piece of art with elements or themes that are problematic are worthless, but that’s not the prevailing view anywhere except maybe clickbait thinkpieces which have always existed primarily to garner attention for exaggeration. I’m probably more “woke” and certainly more left wing than most opinion piece writers, and I love classic literature and film. I think art is such a complex and multifaceted subject that it’s perfectly fine for it to be examined from a multitude of angles, not merely technical aspects, as much as I enjoy the technical aspects of filmmaking. Some people apply these types of analyses in superficial ways, and that’s always been the case for every sort of lens you could think of-in one of your other videos for example you joked about how a lot of people will hyper focus on tracking shots and other flashier techniques without engaging with anything deeper, but those people existing doesn’t invalidate analyzing film through a technical/aesthetic lens.
I just really don’t think this is a huge problem (certainly not some unique problem, if anything just the same type of problem that’s always existed just with different focuses and standards), and it’s not ruining cinema, though I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the title of the video was just a bit of clickbait because that’s how the UA-cam algorithm works
@@joshuab9226 So is it your contention that when the vote was opened, everyone went, "Praise the Lord!" and started rapid-fingering the up-vote for that movie that, oh, did it star a woman? was it directed by a woman? did it have feminist messaging? Didn't even realize it, I've just been waiting for my chance to get this movie on a list because I watch it twice a year.
@joshuab9226 Thank you!
@@Moviewise but part of the reason why filmmakers like Kurosawa, Ozu and Ray were so widely celebrated by critics, filmmakers and film enthusiasts in Europe and the United States in the mid 20th century was they liked those film for being asian films. it wasn't like people evaluated Seven Samurai separate from it being a Japanese film. The context of a film being Japanese is something that has always been important to how a film is perceived even if it isn't the sole reason for a film's success. People have always liked the aesthetics, narratives and themes various directors from a variety of background can bring to a story. asian film representation was something that came about before women or black filmmakers were recognized partially because praising Japanese films felt safe to american and European white male audiences because they didn't have to worry about those directors undermining their monopoly on film production and film discourse in Europe and america. while critics were praising Kurosawa not a lot of asian-europeans and asian american filmmakers were getting work in this time period. a lot of asian films get on the top movies of all time list but no films by asian american or asian European films get on the list because historically asian European/americans were kept out of filmmaking. a desire and a aversion for diversity has always existed and has impacted film discussion forever. People have always wanted to see films told from a multitude of perspectives and it's unfair to dismiss that desire. Does it mean some films are initially over praised? yeah of course but they are usually forgotten about while films that are truly great stick around. Wonder Woman was called one of the greatest superhero films of all time when it came out and no one really remembers it six years later. Spiderman: into the spider verse was called one of the greatest superhero films of all time when it came out and it is still beloved five years later. both are "woke" movies but one stuck around and one was forgotten. the reason that films like beau travel and Jeanne Dielman continue to gain greater praise overtime is partially that they are films made by women and their perspectives from that background make both films very different than how most if not all men would approach the material but also because those films has images, narratives, characters and moments that people who have seen those films have never forgotten. is that ruining cinema? no if anything more films should be like them. if there is a issue with contemporary approaches to films about womanhood or race is that there is no willingness to potentially alienate the audience. Beau travel and Jeanne Dielman are both films that are willing to alienate or bore its audience and that makes them great films. films today are often obsessed with making sure that the audience is alert and focused at all times and that limits what films can be. films can longer be intentionally tedious. everything must be 100% captivating in a very specific way all the time. its not a matter of wokeness as much as it is a matter of commercialism.
The problem is people think the "content" is the film or the art. But while a profound or important theme doesn't translate necessarily into a "great film", while a great film can transform into a profound theme.
There’s a big difference between giving recognition to under-appreciated films, and seeking out films made by historically underrepresented people to make oneself look better.
There's also a big difference between repeating other people's arguments you agree with and exercising your own critical thinking skills
This is fire. This is my new favorite channel.
That clip at 2:57, of Orson Welles getting shot -- is that from the unfinished film 'Orson's Bag' (a.k.a., 'One Man Band')?
I guess the same question applies to that clip of him at whatever estate that is at 9:01.
Those clips are from the hilarious French film “La Classe Américaine”, which was made dubbing over clips from dozens of Warner Bros films. The Orson Welles footage was taken from the film “Start the Revolution Without Me”.
@@Moviewise Thanks! Good to know.
I have never even considered what gender the director of a film was, what does it ultimately matter? Putting such a focus on that these directors were women seems to me like they don't expect women to have as much the ability to create a great film as men, so they have to highlight it every time it happens, and that is why i find this decades list so counteractive to their point.
Female directors have a hard time getting their work taken seriously and some of them like Chantel Ackerman and Celine Sciamma make movies from a distinctly feminine pov, so yes it matters.
@@dylanmcdermott1110 Bullshit. If they make good stuff (like Point Break) then people will love their films and praise them. If they make tedious political agitprop like Jeanne Dielman they will get called out for it.
@@mowazeem644 Well like it or not, Jeanne Dielmann got enough votes to top the critics list and come in fourth on the directors list, so obviously there are many people in the film industry that love it. The fact that Point Break is a popular movie doesn't change the fact that female directors get less respect and fewer awards.
@@dylanmcdermott1110 XDDDDD
@@dylanmcdermott1110 What part of "the poll was changed" didn't you understand. If you change it enough and allow teens to form a block - I'm sure you could get 'The Goonies' and 'Home Alone' on the list. The list was changed to subvert the directors and critic's list. And you don't get respect for being a female and turning up, just as you don't for being a male - these are ingrained features you were born with, such as color. You get respect for devising or marshaling a script, for your collaboration with a composer, production designer and cinematographer. You get respect for your craft and artistry. And they get less reward because they have been in the game less and being a film director, away from family for extended periods, is highly destructive of family life - enhance the high divorce rate.
I would love to see your review of Black Girl because I’m curious to see how it fails at filmmaking in general.
I suspect though if you watch the first 10 mins it'll soon be very clear
I don't understand what he's talking about at all. I thought it was a very well made film which conveys it's point in a very good fashion. Would I put it on the top 100? No. But calling it laughably bad is crazy to me
@@jacobb.9181 Seems clear to me that his political bias has seeped into his film criticism. How can you condemn so-called "woke" culture for damaging art without also condemning the right-wing fanaticism that bans books from libraries and schools and blames Hollywood for poisoning our children? This video looks like an audition for FOX News.
You left out the part where Schrader calls Ackerman’s film “a favorite of mine, a great film, a landmark film”
@@N_Loco_Parenthesis I don’t disagree. But my opinion doesn’t matter. Schrader thought it was relevant enough to include in his statement.
@@N_Loco_Parenthesis It's a goddamn poll, not the "be all and end all" of cinema. It represents a cultural marker in cinematic history, nothing more.
@@mckeldin1961 Not really, it is a measure of the infiltration of universities and schools.
I strongly, strongly disagree with basically everything in this video. But chiefly I would object to your assertion that many of the films that rose substantially did so because of their politics and not on their merits as films. For starters: tastes and appreciations change over time and I think it's foolish to believe that re-evaluation of films is based on trend chasing or virtue signaling rather than a variety of legitimate factors. Things like exposure (Black Girl for example was only recently restored and re-released leading to a much wider audience and critical revisiting), influence, and even just change in tastes, generationally or otherwise, can all influence how we view films. There are numerous very good and valid reasons why these films may have risen in popularity among critics; many of which are much more obvious to point to than just "politics" (especially when so many of the worlds most acclaimed films already tended to espouse similar politics, yet no one claims that "Bicycle Thieves" is only on the list for its socialist sympathies)
Secondly: I think that by delineating these movies as "woke" or "SJW" movies you're essentially doing what you accuse these S&S critics of doing: you've determined that you dislike the films politics and therefore are dismissive of them as art. I'm not saying you have to think these films are great or even like them; but that your criticism is so firmly couched in their political leanings (and indeed is the center-piece of your argument here) gives one the impression that something about the films politics rubbed you the wrong way and now you're looking for any reason to be scathing of them.
Moviewise knows there's a loyal audience to be gained for anything "anti-woke" and "anti-sjw".
facts
Using Moonlight as an example of films that focus on themes over aesthetic is crazy to me. Have you seen it?? Do you really think there was no effort put forth into the film's look? It's a beautiful film to watch!
Well they just copied Wong Kar Wai really especially that identical shot from Days of Being Wild
It's aesthetic attraction and craftsmanship can be undercut by a foul and pretty evil message of social engineering. As Orwell once wrote, there is a class of people who think that the rest smell rank and are beneath them.
No, I watch good movies not directed by AI-generated race grifters like “Barry Jenkins.”
I dig this essayist, but if he's lumping MOONLIGHT in with the flat woke screeds, I don't think he saw it. Barry Jenkins is one of the greats.
@@lanolinlight Your bias is so great in your answer, you must have a modern university education.
There are better movies directed by women than Jeanne Dielman. Examples: Daisies, The Piano, Toni Erdmann… Anyway, Satantango didn’t deserve to go down the list. Now THAT IS A MASTERPIECE.
None of these is even close to being a top 100 film though, good they may be.
Daisies is not good
Pffft, big deal. Tastes and perceptions change. What is considered "hot" in one decade can be seen as "not so hot" in another. A few movies that got pushed out are a pity, a few others (like Dreyer's dreadful final film) I'm glad to see let go. Same goes for the new entries. A few deserving newcomers, a few who have me baffled. Lists will flip all the time, and I'll bet S&S will have another #1 in ten years time. (Personally, I think there are far better movies in Hitchcock's catalogue than "Vertigo" and "Mulholland Drive" isn't Lynch's strongest work either, but hey. Also, "Greed" dropped out of the top 10 decades ago, and I still find it more amazing than most other movies that still happen to be in it.) Besides, there are more ways to judge a movie than just blocking and cinematography. The acting, the writing, the music - they're all playing a part too. There are a good number of films that may not be polished in their execution but whose rawness has a much bigger, if not even a longer lasting, impact than a meticulously put together Kubrick flick. There are more than just one or two criteria that make a great movie.
So, I just watched a 10 minutes midlife crisis.
There's that, but also criticising "woke" guarantees a specific audience, and there's money to be made.
I agree with some of your concerns, especially when it seems modern culture puts a strong emphasis on messaging over everything. I don’t even want to call it a “woke” thing. Remember people were praising the recent Mario movie for being “anti-woke” a couple of months ago?
That said I don’t think material such as theme should take a back seat. I’d argue that’s what made Vertigo stand the test of time. From a film making perspective Hitchcock has made other more technically proficient movies than Vertigo, and it’s script, especially from a plot perspective is a MESS. BUT! It’s themes of obsession are so perfectly realized and sticks with you well after the movie is over.
I’m glad you brought this up! I’ve always thought I downplayed theme a bit too much here. I should have just said that theme alone is not enough to make a film a masterpiece. What’s important is how deeply the story explores the theme; how ambitious and thematically complex is the screenplay.
Indeed, the depth with which “Vertigo” explores obsession gives strength to the film, as do the multifaceted ways “The Godfather” and “Citizen Kane” explore power.
It just seems too many people who should know better are basing their choices on theme alone, and highly specific themes at that (mainly race and sexuality). All the while ignoring technical/narrative elements or even if the theme is richly developed, as in the case of “Do the Right Thing” which does everything perfectly in my book.
@@Moviewise with you saying that, and I’ll preface this by saying Jeanne Dielman isn’t one of my favorite movies or anything, but it does explore its theme of domestication to a maddening degree and that’s why I think it has stuck around especially in cinephile circles.
I’m not gonna pretend I know why critics picked the movies they picked. I don’t believe there should be a definitive guideline on what should or shouldn’t be allowed. As a film lover, I love things that get people talking, and at the end of the day that’s what these Sight and Sound poll is meant to do. So I can’t get too upset with it.
That "anti-woke" Mario push also came from the woke establishment though. It helped sell movie tickets to a nothing movie with zero anti-woke messaging whatsoever. If you can label a neutral movie as "anti-woke" and label woke movies as "normal" then you win the culture war because you normalize the woke ideology while setting expectations extremely low for criticism of that ideology.
In other words the left is taught not to be satisfied with a movie unless it pushes extreme far left values, but the right is taught to celebrate movies just for doing nothing. That ensures the right will always lag behind. Sound of Freedom was not much different. Maybe if that movie was about an activist who was working against the gay movement, and the movie made a sophisticated argument for that being a good thing, it would be the right wing equivalent of a typical far left woke movie which use sophisticated arguments to push their views, but going after pedos is almost as accepted on the left as the right so that was another false marketing campaign. It wasnt an anti-woke movie it was a centrist movie. Mario was a slightly left of center movie.
The anti-woke crowd does not get movies made for them, period. They just get tricked sometimes into supporting the lesser of two evils.
@@punchforpound2808 what are you talking about? I didn’t see anyone in the industry pushing it as “anti-woke”. It was mostly just a bunch of lame internet culture warriors who make money making clickbait youtube thumbnails.
This sort of 4D chess shit you laid out here, is kind of stupid.
@@punchforpound2808 American cinema has always been fascist propaganda, vigilantism, war movies, wild west movies...it's just the normal, default possition for you because you're effectively brainwashed, wich was the point, so when you see liberal propaganda (wich is if anything center right going by current standards as understood in the context of pop political culture but in reality is something VERY different) it feels so alien and intolerable to you.
TLDR: "Anti woke" is how american media has been always, you have plenty of propaganda to explore if you wish.
I am glad that 'M' moved up as much as it did to surpass Metropolis. It is truly Fritz Lang's masterpiece.
I'm more a fan of Die Nibelungen, myself.
I love your videos man, and I think you should give Black Girl and Sembène more credit. One thing that's missing from both your analysis and the "woke mob" you push against, is this idea of "historical context," which matters greatly, and always has! Part of the reason Citizen Kane, for example, is so remarkable isn't merely its own aesthetic merits but what those aesthetic merits mean given its cinematic context. Leaving characters' faces in shadow, for example, was radical and unthinkable in Hollywood at the time... Likewise, Sembène achieved some groundbreaking and intellectually rich films when there was very little cinematic or cultural apparatus to support him. That said, I do find it strange and suspect that Black Girl is the one people love so much, when Sembène made far better films later in his career. Mad props for mentioning Yeleen, a brilliant and sadly unseen film. Also make sure to watch Soleil O by Med Hondo, the greatest African film!
"Leaving characters' faces in shadow, for example" - no, completely wrong. That dates back to the teens when Cecil B. DeMille used it. 'Wuthering Heights' (1939), 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame' (1939), 'The Long Voyage Home' (1940), 'All That Money Can Buy (1941), etc, also had that kind of lighting. Even the deep focus and shots of ceilings had been used too. It's Kane's elan that makes them feel new.
@@bobbyjosson4663 Thanks for these references! Clearly leaving faces in shadows wasn't unprecedented in 1941, but it also wasn't widely used we can agree... Regardless, this is merely 1 example. My point stands, that historical context and aesthetic merit are hard things to untangle.
@@josh_from_xboxlive Agreed.
Yes, Sembene's film Moolaade is much more technically proficient and a brilliant film.
You said it! Movies are being pushed because they fit with critics' INTERESTS and not because of anything related to cinema itself! It's like they forgot what they work with
That has been the system behind the Oscars since day one, it is nothing new that has spread, but comes with the way things are organized.
You literally described what critics have always done. You only have a problem with it now because it doesn’t always align with your white male interests.
I'm irritated that this channel doesn't have a LOT more subscribers.
This reminds me of when "Beasts of the Southern Wild" got so much attention. So, we rented it from Blockbuster. And it was terrible. Meanwhile, Jane Campion makes a film every few years, and they are interesting, challenging and, often, dense. But worth your time. Godfather II kicked off the list? Seriously? At the same time, since we know this is BS, who cares? This reminds me of all those shows on TV about "ancient aliens". And eventually, they seem to always return to the sarcophagus lid found at Palenque, which is supposed to show a Mayan king steering a spaceship. And it's all nonsense. Look up the symbolism of the figures on the sarcophagus lid, and you'll see the claims of it depicting a spaceship are nonsense. Anyway, the backlash has begun, and, as always, the pendulum will swing too far in the other direction.
You are kidding! Dreadful.
Literally one of the best films I've ever seen in my life and I'm not casual. I have a film degree. To each his own.
@@Frommalwithlove We may be at cross purposes. I was referring to The Piano - surely you were not!
Yea that shit was awful. I feel like just making that movie was child abuse
Real cinema is fine, because true cinema is an artform and art for the most part is beyond petty classifications. What is happening to Hollywood pop culture is just the pendulum moving with mass trends as it always has. Don't confuse cinema with Hollywood blockbusters and franchisees.
😊
Yes but isnt this list SUPPOSED to be about "real cinema"? Do we need to have a new category "real" "real cinema" because cinema and "real cinema" have been coopted by the main stream? What if a woman somewhere is stopped from making actual great cinema because she has seen that all she needs to do to succeed is make her movie feminist and fill it with minorities? Thats a disservice to humanity at large.
That fact that anyone would give a shit about a list is the problem.
For me there is good writing and bad writing, good representation of ideas and bad representation of ideas, good representation of reality or bad representation of reality, good and well-rounded representation of a character's needs and motives and strengths and shortcomings or bad and lacking or illogical representation thereof, a multifaceted and deep interpretation of the world given or a monocausal and shallow one.
These are categories that can be precisely argued, each on its own, and you can use these to analyse a movie on different levels using these, and people will easily understand what you are talking about and how you arrive at your as session - whether they will agree or not is a different matter, but you will be able to have clear and civil and concinct discussions.
Now "woke" or "not woke", what's that even supposed to mean?
Seems like everyone I ask has their own definition of the term, and each definition throws together a bunch of the more precise categories I mentioned above, and tries to jam them into ONE and the same thing.
And most people won't even give a clear answer to an objective hierarchy of or formula or algorithm logic by which they balance and weigh these more precise categories against each other when making a claim to whether something is woke or not.
Many people won't have definition at all, their argument begins and ends with "oh, you know exactly what I mean, don't pretend you don't, you must see it" which is the dumbest pseudo-argument ever. It is as if I said, you know exactly what I mean when I say that movie is uru4frj, don't act like you don't, I refuse to define uru4frj.
"Woke" mainly seems to be a subjective gut feeling people don't want to or are unable to put into words, a purely emotional reaction; but it is completely useless to even start to argue the inherent(?) or arbitrary(?) merits or destructiveness of "woke" when there is no common grounds on what it means. It will just emotionalize, confuse, distract, convolute and obscure and derail the whole debate BEFORE you even start talking about the object at hand that you try to categorize at such.
It also does not help an analysis if you don't dissect by one criterion alone to get a really sharp closeup, but by several criteria at once to spread out your matter into several directions at once never focusing at a thing.
You don't use a triple ball and chain beset with several razors on each ball to dissect a complex organism, you use a single razor.
"woke" / "not woke" will just mess things up and blur your standards.
I have two definitions of Woke:
1) "Woke" is a loosely-affiliated, anti-liberal, left-authoritarian political movement primarily originating in the United States which applies a Marxist conflict theory lens to demographics. It rejects democratic concepts of individualism, universalism, objectivity, and meritocracy, instead believing that the demographic category is the fundamental unit of society and essentialist determinate of personal identity. These demographic categories are typically reduced to binary oppositions (e.g.: white vs. other, men vs. other, straight vs. other, cis vs. other). The opposite of "wokeness" is "whiteness," * which is the term used by the woke for broad Western liberal democratic values including individualism, universalism, objectivity, meritocracy, legal and property rights, rational linear thought, science, democracy, rule of law, marriage and the nuclear family, capitalism, Christianity, politeness, and the framework of human rights. "Wokeness" replaces the concept of human rights with the concept of privilege and oppression experienced by the demographic category as a demographic category, e.g.: a homeless white man experiences white privilege while a rich Black man experiences Black oppression. "Wokeness" is not an extension of the traditional liberal and civil rights discourses of the 1960's through 2000's, but rather a loosely-affiliated left-authoritarian movement coordinated between different sub-movements such as third and fourth-wave feminism, queer theory and queer liberation, Black power, Anti-racism, Communist and Marxist organizations, Islamofascism, and the critical studies disciplines. As outlined by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic in their textbook "Critical Race Theory: An Introduction": "The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power... Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law."
2) People who want to ethnically cleanse Jews but call YOU a Nazi if you didn't like a movie. **
* c.f. Smithsonian National Museum of African-American History and Culture chart on Whiteness that was removed because it was racist to anyone who wasn't white.
** This is, I admit, a much more recent definition, but Woke people walked themselves right into it.
All lists tend to devolve into popularity contests anyway. Especially when curated by more than one person.
💪😉 👁️👁️🎞️⚡🌪️⚡🎞️👀 😅👍
Imagine if jeanne dielman was the only evidence of humanity ever existing
That's what make it the greatest. If there is one single film that could capture what humanity is about, that's that film.
@@thesilenttreatment6837 I am genuinely curious to hear your opinion on the meaning of this film.
Someone could make a argument that Jeanne dielman is a Very good representation of humanity, you could even make a argument that the more realistic filmes are, the least interest they become.
But I watched a documentary(cidade de deus 10 anos depois) now and was fascinated by It, so \(°✓°)/
@@felipebartole6461 I could easily make the argument that Michael Bay and his hype kinetic editing is far more realistic than Jean Dielman. I can assure you that if a person sits down to peel a potato, the potato vanishes immediately, and one begins to imagine all sorts of things; doing laundry, having sex, the last time they had a good beer, that thing their friend said to them on the phone last night, that time their best friend fell out of tree and broke both arms. The experience of peeling a potato is not at all captured by Chantal Akerman, the visual of what that looks like on the outside is capture, but is the interior of it captured, especially by that very still performance. My grandmother spoke to herself all the time when she was doing something like cooking or cleaning, because the mind is constantly at work. I smile and laugh out of nowhere when I am alone, I sigh, I fidget. I would use that scene as an example of how unrealistic films can be, not how realistic they are.
I still put Citizen Kane at 1
Sure, woke cinema may be a problem but AT LEAST it has helped END sexism in our culture, and it's not like the barrage of painfully unlikable, annoying, pedantic, aggressive, hypocritical "strong" female characters we've seen these past few years in the name of feminism is going to have ANY negative effect on how people view women, because it's not like media shapes our view of the world or anything like that...
(for the easily offended and the mildly illiterate, yes, that's sarcasm)
don't worry he likes furiosa that make him even
I am glad you mentioned "Get Out" which has to be the most over rated film this decade. The fact that it makes the list and a masterpiece like "Rosemary's Baby" does not says a lot about the current state of film criticism and knowledge.
There are about 500 films that should rank higher than Rosemary's Baby and more than a 1000 that should rank higher than Get Out.
@@juliussw9153 It's a classic and though I like lists - ranking one above the other is counter-productive. Having a pantheon is far more production and constructive. Classics, semi-classics, good entertainments, minor works and the rest.
get out is flippin good
Which other horror movie do you put instead? The exorcist?
@@bobbyjosson4663 Notice the rhetoric this person uses... you can tell he is a leftist defending wokeness.
@@morbius_of_krell Yep, the Universities have a lot to answer for.
Sight and Sound's Top 5 next time
1) Deep Throat (1972)
2)Taboo (1980)
3) Salo: 120 Days of Sodomy (1975)
4) Pink Flamingoes (1972)
5) My Beautiful Laundrette (1985)
it's a once a decade poll...
i'm kinda hoping to see dogstarman enter the list in 2032
@@LimeGreenLegend Thanks. Changed it.
@@mahatmaniggandhi2898 I was thinking of putting Warhol’s 8-hour avante garde epic Empire (1965) in the top 5. but at least one Brackage film would be in the top 10.
Interestingly, Brackage’s Anticipation of the Night (1958) title perfectly describes the time progression in Warhol’s Empire.
@@binghamguevara6814 :)) first i was gonna say empire actually
There may still be great writers out there but the producers won't hire them because they aren't 'woke'. I miss the old studio system where they had dedicated departments to be historically correct, wardrobe departments for any era, scritwriters on retainer, a semi-permanente acting company, producers who produced every day and directors they supported. Directors like Clint Eastwood have recreated parts of that and he makes good movies. Thanks for naming the evil I was seeing in modern ratings. We are not being informed by these new polls, we are being manipulated.
Well, I'm glad you did this, Mr. Wise. You bring a Bloomian mastery and love to your work. I was a literature grad student and I had this identity politics nonsense shoved down my throat endlessly. I learned nothing. Thankfully, I have recovered a lot with the help of your channel. Thank you, sir 👍
An involuntary exclaim of "What!" burst out when I saw Godfather II eliminated. Then....Then...Upon seeing Lawrence of Arabia elminated I fell into a silence, a cold sweat came over me - a slight sickened feeling falling through my throught and stomach - that such a reality could exist, and that I am trapped within it.
there should be jeanne dielman sequels where it gets progressively more wild: zombies, aliens, time travel, multiverse
That's part of the problem with movies today
100% true
@@jacobvarney23
Breathless (1960) is also highly overrated, I get the cultural significance but the film itself is a pretentious bore
I've always thought Daisies was the greatest film ever made by a woman; subversive and feminist without being preachy or tedious, but having style and inspiration and imagination to burn. It is so clearly and vastly superior to Jeanne Dielman that there's no contest. I would even be OK with it being number one because at least it's a movie that uses all the resources of cinema in an original, enlightening and entertaining way.
What is so good about "subversive and feminist" when those tools were created not to liberate by to divide and disintegrate, the same way and my the same folks that have bought Post Modernism, Critical Race Theory and now, Tran Ideology (self proclamation of your new gender changes it). Just because it has style or a wit or is more skilled doesn't make it's dark soul any more palatable. It's the same with Griffith's 'Birth of a Nation', 'Intolerance', and the latter 'Triumph of the Will'.
I'm kind of intrigued: is there a meaningful reason why Lubistch is in Plato's place, pointing to the world of ideas, while Ford stands for Aristotle, driving attention to the earthy realm? Or it just looked cool that way, with the cigar and the pipe pointing at each other?
Actually yes, thanks for asking! Lubitsch is known for his subtlety, for making shots that insinuate rather than reveal, for suggesting what is happening in offscreen territory. Thus, ideas. John Ford is known for his pictorialism and use of landscapes, for showing action and rituals upfront. Thus, empiricism.
They fit well as Plato and Aristotle that way. I wish I had had the time to put a director’s head on every visible character that pertains. It would have been a fun exercise.
@@Moviewise Makes perfect sense. It's so cool that you put so much thought into a throwaway gag.
As for the other characters, I've been doing some research. According to Wikipedia, the only one in that particular portion of the painting (apart from the central figures) who is supposed to be a historical person is the guy in the green robe, who stands for Socrates. In so far as he's regarded as the founder of Western philosophy (or modern ancient Western philosophy, if that makes sense), I reckon that he should bear the head of Mr. D. W. Griffith.
Thank you for this voice.
f**k politicizing of cinema
All cinema is political
@@marknewbold2583 everything is political if you happen to put it in that context, but the THING is that for some people it is the only important context
ah yes, the famously apolitical medium of cinema
That Yale Professor speaking about the "school of resentment" and socio-political themes/subjects dominating English lit, as it's taught in college is absolutely not wrong. It was around the same year as this Charlie Rose interview, 1994, that the English department at my little college adopted a new text for Eng. 101 and 102 students.
Replacing essays like "A Modest Proposal" or speeches like The Gettysburg Address were essentially 'PC' hit pieces like "What's Really In Your Toothpaste" and something about how Sci-Fi is permeated with sexism. I shit you not, these were the subjects/titles of the essays.
I personally had done a lot of writing about socio-political matters and opined on current events for my school's paper, and the fanzine world that I was part of; and I was typically left-of-center about this. But even with that I was taken more-than aback by what was being presented to us as the 'peak' of thought and rhetoric.
I was young, but I still understood that there's a difference between writing about contemporary affairs, and creating something that can speak to distant generations and cultures. This was the beginning of the era of bullshit.
Fortunately--and this isn't a low-key brag--I was/am humanist enough to continue to seek out and experience Classical art/poetry/cinema/literature from cultures around the world. Whether it's the Tao, the Koran, Sufi Poetry, books from the Old & New Testament, African choral and drum music (plus Jazz), classic (and contemporary) works from Japan, Iranian cinema, Russian cinema, Italian cinema, etc.--things that use contemporary elements as vehicles to make timeless, almost-transcendental points, rather than limit the 'wisdom' to the confines of the modern issue.
Good luck!
Must say... you possess a great deal of knowledge when it comes to cinema...thirsty and hunger to learn more...please keep making such incredible videos.
I really take issue with your arguments regarding Daughters of the Dust and Black Girl. First of all, you really think that the world's most prestigious critics and directors are getting their opinions on the best films of all time from references in a Beyonce music video? See how silly that sounds? As for Black Girl, you say it would not get a passing grade "anything relating to the art of cinema." But why? You certainly never mention Man With a Movie Camera, a 1929 movie that certainly would not get a "passing grade" in any modern film class. The same goes for Un Chien Andalou, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Battleship Potemkin... oh wait, maybe these films weren't chosen simply for how good they are by today's standards, but perhaps by how influential they are! But you take issue with Black Girl because it is "woke" (code for: has a Black protagonist and talks about colonialism). The double standard is ridiculous. Also, Black Girl has been widely considered a classic film by critics for years, it's not like it just popped out of nowhere. Sure, you have every right to dislike it but that doesn't mean that cinema has "gone woke."
Just say that you're woke and triggered and that you hope she sees this instead of writing a autistic text wall.
They changed the polling criteria so these aren't the most prestigious critics and directors view. The Beyonce bit was a joke but irony and satire are lost on the brainwashed. And most of those films you mentioned are classics I and most exposed to them either love or admire for their artistry. Nothing woke can ever be any good, and is promoted by the new puritans. And if you can't see the crappy, obvious, virtue signalling and blatant messaging in the New Woke Hollywood.
Talking about colonialism in a onesided way is a red flag though. Does it mention all the good things about colonialism or just onesided negatives? Because that's not honest or balanced. It would be like including a movie on the list just for mentioning African cannibalism, without mentioning all the good things about Africa. You can find dirt on anyone but that's not the same as telling the whole truth.
Even if it's a good movie, why did it jump so quickly on the list as wokeness has gotten popular? Thats his point. It can be a classic movie but there are thousands of classic movies. Is it better than Godfather II and so on... or is it just trendy?
If The Passion of Joan of Arc wouldn’t get a passing grade in a class, dump the class
I'm glad I'm not the only one who suspected this. I was long looking forward to the new Sight and Sound list and never imagined it was going to be used as yet another vehicle for forced wokeness.
The worst thing is that this woke stunt will cause harm to Jeanne Dielman's film. If that movie appeared as number one twenty or even only ten years ago when the PC brigade weren't acting like a cult, it would have been seen as more genuine because the motivation behind it was to vote for the greatest. Now, it seems un-coincidental given the woke times happening today to the point where the film is going to be labelled unfairly as 'woke' and even avoided as a result. I have not seen that film and would love to see it given as it appeared in one of the previous Sight and Sound polls, I may or not agree whether it is better than Citizen Kane or Vertigo, but at least I know my personal decision would be whether it deserves the 'greatness' spot and not motivated by pathetic political box ticking.
Sight and sound has ALWAYS been diverse - diversity of FILM in fact. Something that Hollywood doesn't seem to understand these days.
How do you know you wouldn't have the same reaction 10 years ago?
@@avillianchillinskrillian Because ten years ago, 'wokeness' was a concept completely alien to me. Yes, I was aware of things like political correctness going too far but not to the point where it has become the cultural beast like it is today. A film overtaking Citizen Kane at the time would definitely have had me wanting to check it out in a heart beat, Jeanne Dielman or not. I would have had the mindset that the very poll itself was the result of how it has always been since 1952 - critics and directors voting for the sake of cinema itself. Today, because so much seems to be revolving around diversity politics, including the way Hollywood placed new rules on what would qualify to receive an Oscar nomination, the problem being is that cinematic art is overlooked in favour of how many diversity boxes that are ticked. This pattern keeps repeating so often these days that it is too easy to draw the same conclusion to 2022 Sight and Sound poll. There wasn't really that problem ten years ago. It just feels too much of a coincidence for Jeanne Dielman, a feminist film, to suddenly appear at the very top. Again, this is not to crap on the film, I'm still yet to see it and, who knows, I might think it is a better movie than Kane or Vertigo, but it needs to be on cinematic grounds and not on diversity politics.
@@wesleywyndam-pryce5305 Ugh! A troll!!! (sprays troll repellant)
@@Pippinmog I think avillianchillinskrillan's question was likely not in good faith either, given how obvious the situation is.
@@Selrisitai To be fair, it did sound like a reasonable question for me to happily answer despite its tone. The second person was just plain rude.
Side note: I have watched Jeanne Dielman. I liked it, I don't mind the slow pace (if you've seen a few Bela Tarr movies then anything's a fast film lol) and I do get the point of it and why critics put a vote on it, but BEST FILM??? Erm.... nope. If it had been the other feminist movie, Daisies, which is way more fun and experimental, then I'd be more happy with that being number one in the critic's poll. This aside, I personally prefer the director's poll and have 2001: A Space Odyssey in first place.
Great video! What are your top 100 films of all time? If you can, please make a video.
People who use “woke” as an argumentative point are really annoying
You shouldn’t be so easily swayed against an argument by someone using one word you don’t like.
@@potatochip6499 I just called it annoying. So “easily swayed” wouldn’t fit here
Humorous idea considering the woke people forced in their twisted narratives in the first place
@@chrisneon1220 nah, it fits. You’re letting a simple word or concept that you don’t like affect you emotionally and prevent you from getting at the merits of an argument.
@@howardroark3736 using “woke” as an argumentative point is not helpful and annoying imagine if I said
“The Dodgers have gone woke for letting Jackie Robinson play baseball with them”
While I don't disagree on the list jumping part, I do find this video to be a bit far into the hatemongering over nothing camp in other places.
Like, it's fine to not like Get Out, but it kind of feels like you're saying the only reason people liked it was because of its politics, when I mean, it's a decent movie in my books, and I'm not particularly politically minded one way or the other (though I do find any side that starts acting crazy or hating on others for no reason to be one I shy away from).
So overall I think I'm saying while I've enjoyed your comments on cinema in the other videos I've watched of yours, I think this is where I part ways with your channel.
I hope you have a nice life and thanks for sharing your directorial related insights with us!
I also hope you don't hate others for their ethnicities/genders/sexualities/identities or what have you, and that if you do that you gain a bit more empathy for others.
Peace!
The point of the video is that he disagrees with people seemingly focusing on immutable characteristics of the creators when choosing films to vote for and your conclusion is that he might be the hateful one?
@@LordBaktor I already said I agreed with the list jumping part, but even if I didn't I don't see how that's born out of hate, more a misguided attempt at equality gone wrong.
As for my conclusion, my comment dealt in hypotheticals and "if"s, as there's nothing conclusive in this video that points to the creator being an angry hatemonger, but the overall tone of this video, the use of the word woke, and the bit where he bursts out laughing in a mocking way at Get Out's fictional premise of "white vampirism" like that bit of its writing was supposed to be treated as non-fiction and was somehow something to be taken at face value and thus mocked, all combined to a bit of a red flag feel that made me feel like something might be off with this guy in a sad way.
So I politely gave my feedback, thanked them for the videos where he doesn't hatemonger, wished him a nice life, and parted ways.
Hope that helps clarify things for ya!
Does anyone know the name of the critic mentioned around 8:23?
Love your honesty man, you earned a new subscriber
I don't understand why people are complaining. Critics used to think one thing, now they think another. In 10 years they will think something else. The list reflects the opinions of the critics polled at that time.
No it doesn’t, the list reflects the assault on culture by woke activists, who have both infiltrated critical circles and used bullying and intimidation to make apolitical critics fall in line. There’s nothing organic about Jeanne Dielman shooting to the top, and it turns Sight & Sound into a joke.
So lists like tat have absolutely zero worth because they just represent the zeitgeist instead of choosing movies that are timeless, lol. Your answered your question.
What part of "infiltrated", "radical", "agenda driven" and changing the terms of the poll didn't you get?
One of his points was the list used to change slowly as people re-evaluated the contribution of films to history. Recent changes have been far more dramatic, suggesting a radical re-evaluation rather than just attitudes changing across decades. "Greatest film of all time" lists shouldn't be changing dramatically from year to year.
What I want to know is how you got Yul Brynner to narrate. AI?
You won't like this comment, but - maybe you could do a follow-up video where you try to define what this "woke culture" which is supposedly ruining cinema actually is, and where most people's understanding of the term comes from? Feels like you missed a trick when you were researching this one.
I loved beau travil
I think because it's a gay film he called it "woke".
I like many of your videos and a lot about your perspective towards film direction especially. But this video illuminates how limited and rigid your perspective on what makes great art is. Why should physical impressiveness inherently outweigh actual current resonance in the case of The General vs. Get Out. The list is a snapshot of the time it's made, and this idea of representation (though I too see flaws in the logic of it) is clearly part of the current climate so more diverse critics and directors were polled. I personally would put on Get Out any day over The General.
The underlying problem is really an age old one. Behind all that has been called 'wokeness' or 'political correctness' (or 'school of resentment,' in Harold Bloom's terms) is something that, in more recent lingo, has instead been best captured by the phrase 'virtue signalling' -- namely, HYPOCRISY; i.e., the preoccupation with surface-level APPEARANCES above all other considerations; thus, with the APPEARANCE of being virtuous rather than the real thing. If only we had a culture of 'influencers' who truly were concerned with matters of justice. Instead, all they're really after is TO BE SEEN AS being so motivated (and/or being seen as in the same, 'right,' crowd as those who are seen as being so motivated) -- which is a far cry from the real thing -- together with the clout and 'cultural capital' which are thereby garnered.
Someone in antiquity is reputed to have advised that we 'pray in secret, fast in secret, give alms in secret,' as the sincerity involved in any of these activities is immediately thrown into doubt when they're turned into matters of public display. That remains true in this case.
Such a banger. Moviewise was already perfect. But calling Get Out as the overrated race baiting trash it is, is the cherry on top.
Citizen Kane better then Vertigo, 2001 and Jean Dielman... shit.
My only major issue is that the rhetoric around feminism in the current era is, ironically, eurocentric. The aching boredom of Jeanne Dielman is treated like a horror story but I can't see it resonating at all because women today are far more disconnected from that 19th-20th century housewife experience. Maybe it's some sort of larping.
Story doesn't even matter, no westerner can possibly identify with Black Girl except as some form of exploitation porn that can be lived through vicariously. Parajanov is gone because his movies cannot be lived through vicariously by the viewer because they have no real basis for understanding it, since they're unwilling to come to the film on his terms. They want it to fit according to what they want to experience.
People treat Black Girl like Sembène's only movie, which is a bit weird since Mandabi is a much better expression of the struggles of contemporary Africans in execution. The main character is not a blank slate to live through, and he's a bit crude and backwards because he does represent a real person in Africa, with all the flaws inherent to his culture. Same issue you find with Taxi Driver where people react with something along the lines of "I can't relate to this character" as if that's the point of film(???)
Not to mention that it's very unusual for a _person_ to be in the home, alone, in the dead silence, preparing a meal. I think it was propaganda even when it was first made.
@@Selrisitai not at all unusual. My mother and her mother would have done that. It's a magnificent film and also has the greatest screen performance by Delphine Seyrig.
Always fun and informative - thank you 🎉🎉🎉🎉
Glad for the concluding section where we get to acknowledge that not all changes are for the worse. I, too, am glad to see the growing appreciation for 'Mulholland Drive,' which I've been a fan of since the time of its release. (Have yet to see 'In the Mood for Love.)
And though it's all the way down at # 78, I'll add that I'm glad to see the 1974 release 'Celine and Julie Go Boating' make the list for the first time.
The best and most important video on youtube concerning movies! A MUST SEE for the entire world! Absolutely invaluable!
strong disagree. nobody is capable of putting aside bias and judging a film purely on technique and aesthetic merit. critics have never done this. the story is what actually effects audiences. cinema is the most subjective artform. anyone who says otherwise is pushing an agenda, including you.
F*ck yeah
It is hilarious that removing the thumb of white men suddenly is 'rejiggering'
What does this mean?
This guy has such a limited perspective of what makes a movie good. And I mean on a stylistic level, though I disagreee with the thesis of this video in almost every way (almost), what startles me most is how stodgy this perspective is. What really matters is how "fluid the editing is" I'm sorry I call bullshit. Unfluidity, or jarring cutting is a staple of great cinema, many of the terrible "loses" from this list feature it. And thats just one example. Black girl, jeanne dielman, beau travail, if you critique these on the grounds of their inclusion only on the grounds of representation, you too are flattening them as pieces of art, removing them from their context, ignoring their style, and their use of film form. All of which, are extraordinarily interesting uses of cinemas language. And, affecting and "profoundly" plotted (whatever the fuck that means). This is as demeaning to the field of criticism as those you (are rightly) suspicious and critical of.
The video never dismisses Jeanne Dielman or Beau Travail as for their filmic style, it only says their rise comes at a suspicious time when critics talk too much about affirmative action, so they're probably not honoring them for anything cinematic. Actually he talks positively about the visuals and the plot of Jeanne Dielman and compares them to other films without feminist themes that fell down the list
Sound like you're having a really limited perspective and you're triggered :-))
Wow, you really didn't get any of the video. Triggering can be like that when you've been brainwashed in a cult. The poll was rigged by changing the criteria of inclusion. The same way that, in a smaller way, they added together the votes of the first two Godfather films to dethrone Citizen Kane.
Fluid editing just means good editing and can include dramatic 'jarring cuts' as long as the purpose of the edit serves the arc and aesthetic that is the film. None of those films come close to masterpieces like Godfather II or Lawrence.
I understand directors are trying to not make the Spike Lee mistake by listing there favourites as male.
However you are packaging these films as undeserving because of the the directors race, sexuality and sex.
Incredible video! I'm very surprised it isn't more popular so far! I hope to see more eventually. :)
And you will!
Perhaps it is and the number is suppressed!
Just because you don't see what is so great about a movie does not mean that everyone else is the same. You are as guilty as the so-called 'woke' critics in presenting a narrow idea of What Movies Should Be. Besides, Jeanne Dielman is a structuralist masterpiece that builds upon the works of avant-garde filmmakers like Michael Snow into a movie that forces the viewer to re-evaluate female spaces, their own temporal relationship to watching movies and presents a viewing experience that is unique. On top of whatever rules you ascribed to Good Filmmaking during your spiel. Something Akerman did 20 years before Satantango, for the record.
I’ve seen people say that if somebody even uses the term woke, they instantly assume that person has sexist and racist beliefs 🙄
But this video makes your last video make much more sense! :)
@@wesleywyndam-pryce5305 :O I already found one
That's because it's extremely convenient. Eliminate your opposition by just fabricating charges to associate with their beliefs.
"If they say they believe in God, they hate their mothers, so just be aware of that."
It's complete foolishness. Try _asking_ someone who doesn't like wokeness and see if you agree that they are sexist and/or racist.
@@Selrisitai have a look at the history of the word "woke" in current usage. You will see how racism is at the very heart of all the whining about it. Being politically aware is not something to be encouraged by the critics of wokeness. Having empathy and finding common ground with humanity is woke
@@marknewbold2583 WHich is precisely why it was good to fire all of the white men with decades of experience in the film craft and replace them with new, inexperienced people who look different, to give us all of the movies now which are much better for humanity
A few clips here and there doesn't prove anything.
It would probably take hours to go through any film to compare it with another, and that's even if you agree on the criteria.
Undoubtedly some people would be persuaded by your rhetoric. Or should I say, your Pathos.
Any of these critics could come up with 100 films worthy of being on the list. So when selecting only ten, other factors *have to* be considered. I think most critics want a list that's diverse in terms of genre, period and nationality. So why not include gender in that as well? The first number one, by the way, was Bicycle Thieves, which was also clearly a political choice. The whole point of the S&S list was originally to make a list that was different from the standard lists.
I do agree… but, I don’t think you are ever going to find a single critic who would consider Daughters of the Dust better than Lawrence of Arabia or Godfather Part II
Vertigo isn’t even Hitchcock’s greatest film. In fact I’d rate it in the middle of his films. How it even made it into the top 50 is beyond me.
Dude, what a breath of fresh air you are!!!
I understand that you are trying feed the algorithm, but this video title is eye-rollingly stupid compared to the video titles you normally use.
I love formal interpretations of an art form.
I understand you need views to support the channel and this is a buzzword.
Too bad though, because your discussion of film elements outside of buzzwords is so good
One female director who deserves accolades for anyone male or female is Kathryn Bigelow (Point Break, The Hurt Locker, Detroit, etc)
Strange Days is her go-to-movie for me, her magnum opus.
They're bad films
@@elevenseven-yq4vu Honorable Mention. Unjustly overlooked film
Hurt Locker was a plitical film. And it won the Oscars so the US could boohoo about how they were suffering as they waged war to seize oil that didn't belong to them
@@CrazyMazapan The US military has a coalition with Hollywood to paint them in a positive light. As a movie, however, it was a good movie.
everything you say at 7:19 is wrong because all those technical aspects can all be on point but if the story/script is off the film cant be good. it can have great editing and cinematography etc but it wont be great if the story is off. on the other hand, a film can be extremely limited in terms of technical aspects. amateur editing,shoddy photography amateur equipment etc.... and it can be great. all on the strength of the story/script. story/script is more important than anything else. also art and literature has always been used as a way for the marginalized to tell their stories this isnt anything new.
But you're confusing the story with the script. The first thing that popped in my mind was that Sienfeld episode where they're waiting for a table at the restaurant. That's it, the whole story. They don't even get the table. They wait a half hour then give up. But the script is flawless. These are two completely different machines in a work, one is optional, while the other is bedrock. Lol. But now I'm thinking of that animated show, Primal. It's a caveman and a dinosaur who grunt and growl at eachother, yet a story is told. Meh. Whatever.
I mean have you ever considered that the reappraisal is at least partially deserved? The fact is, while maybe people are distorting these films rankings a little too high, they may well have been too low before, due to discrimination. What im trying to say is the pendulum is swinging in the other direction, as it should do, and soon itll come to a rest at a truly objective and fair viewpoint. I hope. Also, you seem to rank style as tantamount to a movies quality. I personally dont agree, and I think themes and story ARE incredibly important and SHOULD be considered by critics, even if they shouldn't be the only thing considered. I love your other videos, but this just feels strangely reactionary, and doesnt say anything about great cinema or analyze how its created whatsoever. Dissapointing.
Wokeness aside... Godfather 2 is out and Goodfellas is in ?
The meme should be "young person of unassumed gender" instead of "old man"
I’d love to hear your thoughts on The Man Who Loved Women and A Serious Man.
Okay, I dig your videos, but throwing fine films like BLACK GIRL, GET OUT, DAUGHTERS OF THE DUST and MOONLIGHT under the woke bus tells me maybe your critical radar gets just as jammed over "black" subjects as that of the wokesters.
Agree, he's placing those films into a package and saying there all "woke".
@@PersonOfTheInternet280He's not saying the movies themselves are woke, he's saying they are overpraised by the woke.
He could of made his point clear.
He never mentions how directors are afraid to not include female directors. They could get cancelled like the Spike Lee incident when he listed only males.@@richardcahill1234
Really good video, sadly there are those who miss the point and engage in this cultural war and end up praising zack snyder films and sound of freedom
Also, Mulholland Drive is trash. Artsy trash is still trash. I'd rather have trashy artistry, like, say, Married... with Children.
At this rate, "Who Killed Captain Alex" will be the greatest film of all time in the next survey. How much you wanna bet none of the people rating "Black Girl" so highly have never seen it, based solely on the title and caption?
Some of these films were elevated because their message is now recognized as timely and important when in the past it (perhaps unfairly) was not. I think this is legitimate and disagree that an analysis of the strength of a film should completely ignore story and theme and consist entirely of technical analysis. The films traditionally in the top 10 are not just there because they’re technically great but ALSO because people over time have thought the films had something important to say. We have always given films a big boost because of the perceived strength and importance of their message. It’s just that now different messages are being recognized as important.
I wonder if the changing movie selections are Reflective of greater participation by female critics & reviewers? Not that woke or post-modernist philosophy isn’t a significant contributing factor, but the movies that drop in popularity (e.g. apocalypse now, the searchers, etc..) seem to be “masculine“ movies featuring war, heroics, bravery, great men. These are almost universally replaced with movies highlighting “feminine“ attributes that may appeal to an increasing number of participating females.
these movies are going to die an ugly death.
The film industry has been taken hostage and no-one can afford the ransom.
It's our entire society.
🧠🕳️👀🤣
Never worry, since we are paying it - they are starving themselves out... Just today a video of Hollywoodites crying about their unpaid bills, thousands laid off, stocks plumeting - they tried to stick it to us and ended up sticking it to themselves.
I don’t care if it’s true or not. I loathe the culture wars and am really disappointed it’s been raised here. Either side of the argument is just boring to me and until now Ive been enjoying this series of videos.
i feel the same way. pretty disappointed to find this video after binging this guy's other content
You can’t appreciate it because it’s real honesty and he’s not sugarcoating anything. This is the video that elevated him
It's a clickbait title and framing of the argument that undermine's the credibility of the channel, but other than that it's another good video. The problem is that "woke culture" is lazy short hand used exclusively by clowns no serious person should want to be associated with.
@@troybracy2915 OK kid. You’ll learn - all that stuff is bullshit to distract you from the fact that you are gonna be poorer than your parents.
False equivalency is for assholes.
I thought Get Out was sooo bad. When it started getting all of this praise I thought I was losing my mind but then it just kept happening and I realized what was going on. Jordan Peele does not make good movies
Who still cares about S&S in 2023?
The last couple of years their sales have crashed and burned massively, even before the pandemic. With the publication of their revisioned top 100 list, they lost the little credibility they had left.
So long S&S, you had a great run. But now your magazine has become as redundant as Playboy. Great history, no future!
I found your political views cringe-worthy right from the beginning, but the moment you completely lost credibility was when you referred to Sembène's work as laughable and amateurish.
Yeah.. that's when I clicked off the video
Bro, it was a student film. Get over it.
ok boomer. harold bloom is obviously butthurt bc he lost to a minority.
I feel like we should like films because of our opinions on them, nothing is objectively good, but liking something in cinema when the reason has nothing to do with cinema makes no sense
6:14 Can It Rival "The Room"?
You’re absolutely right. Criterion featured Black Girl so I watched. Uh. Okay. Yawn. Dull.
And, of course, it's happening more and more with video games as well.
I have already been fooled into buying a game that sucks because of woke reviews fooled me into believing it was a good game. Never again will I believe reviews.
What was the game?
@@wizzy5166
Deathloop.
le dot ... I also want to know.
This is the greatest UA-cam video ever made
Funny how being more inclusive of the opinions and stories beyond white men’s becomes a “woke” problem for people who don’t care to include them. There is nothing about Vertigo that is objectively better than every other film ever made. I personally found it boring, beautiful, but boring with very little to say beyond “white man is obsessed with white woman to the point where he forces her to become someone for his own pleasure and she does it…willingly” lol There’s plenty of better films about clinically mentally ill people. Citizen Kane is also boring and has a far too long run time for a film that also really has nothing to say aside from, “Hey! Look at how technically sound my cinematography is!” Wes Anderson does it better, but of course Orson should get credit for doing it before him and with inferior technology-but that doesn’t make it better to watch.
Like the Wilhelm Scream at the end... 🙂
New sub here, so you may have addressed this within a different video (but a cursory glance at your back-catalogue didn't furnish any results); have you considered making a video on the Oscar's new Best Picture rules that will come into effect this upcoming season?
The ones where you literally cannot get nominated for that category if you have white men in your main roles until they calculate a percentage of how many supporting and background characters are women and/or minorities, or unless your script talks about a message the mainstream zeitgeist approves? Is this a new form of Hays Code being created before our very eyes?
You have to be getting throttled or shadow banded. This is amazing content and it should be getting huge numbers.
I really disagree with your views on this topic. Opinions are subjective, and tastes change with time. You seem to be arguing for an objective valuation of cinematic art.
"Opinions are subjective" is always the deadbeat-argument of people with a really shitty taste in anything.
No, truly great art has sublime beauty and touches all. Our approach to appreciating it is subjective. Otherwise, a Mr. Moto b picture is as good as anything ever made. The idea that art is subjective was concocted in a think tank. The same way Modern Art and Jackson Pollack was sponsored by them. There are documentaries and books on the subject. A Chaplin, Keaton and Llyod silent comedy shown to kids had the same effect it did on it's release. I've converted friends to classic black and white films and TV shows. That is the whole essence of a classic, something timeless and as good as the day it was released.
Yeah, beauty isn’t subjective.
Beauty and the quality of art can be difficult to judge. But they’re not subjective. It’s a bit like saying any random object is equally beautiful compared to the Mona Lisa.
The people who think art and beauty are purely subjective have usually never created art. I don’t know how you could find motivation to produce your best creative work if you really believed it was completely subjective and that no standards need apply.
Lets see your list of the top 100. Im looking for great movies to watch