100 Perfect Reasons To Not Do Anything
The American Film Institute celebrated a tenth anniversary edition of its Top 100 movies list with a TV special this last Thursday, which I forgot to record. D'oh. Maybe it'll be replayed on Bravo or something? Surprisingly, the critical call to arms was fairly muted. The various additions to the list and rearrangement to the rankings led the AFI to credit itself for reigniting the discussion of film history and specifically the film canon--and it certainly did, but mostly about how egregiously bad the list was, which of course meant lots and lots of corrective lists and lists to correct those lists. The last ten years have probably contained more lists than at any time in human history and I'm pretty sure Entertainment Weekly is responsible for at least a quarter of them. Of course, the AFI has done its part, releasing increasingly stupid follow up lists. If the AFI has an ultimate legacy, it will have been to inspire America to organize and compartimentalize itself more carefully. So, the new list has been greeted with a yawn (followed by a groan) and if the AFI was expecting more they have only themselves to blame. But, if Sight and Sound can list every ten years, why not the AFI? And of course, the lists support TV specials which support the AFI which is good organization.
Most of the criticism has inevitably settled on how safe and predictable the list has been. Keith Phipps of the AV Club pretty much sums up that viewpoint.
But I think if you're going to poll 1,500 people on the best films of all time, then a list like this should be considered safe and predictable. When lists like this come out, they're not really the 100 greatest movies of all time. Such a subjective claim as that only belongs to the individual. The cumulative effect of the voting panel of 1,500 means that these aren't the greatest movies of all time, just the 100 movies generally agreed to be considered the greatest of all time. If a movie were to suddenly pop onto the list I would find the voting suspect and wonder what kind of agendas were behind the voting. For example, the only real out of the blue selection this time was Sophie's Choice, which made me think for a second that it got through because, as with the Oscars, Hollywood tends to reward Holocaust movies. But a look at the rest of the list reveals Schindler's List as the only other Holocaust film on the list. To use another less stereotypical example, I suspect Intolerance was voted in over The Birth of a Nation was a reaction to the latter's blatant racism.
Agendas aren't necessarily bad things. I support every effort to give women filmmakers, minority filmmakers, gay filmmakers, (fill in the blank) filmmakers more of a voice. But gosh darn it, if a list is claiming to be the one hundred greatest films of all time, I want to see what's honestly considered to be the greatest films of all time. A middle of the road list like that is a better representation of today's cinema voice. If anything, a vanilla list like the one's proffered by the AFI can only call more attention to the ignorance of women and minority and (fill in the blank) filmmakers, by people remarking upon their absence.
In any case, if you're going to poll, 1,500 people, you should expect the results to be somewhat middle of the road. But even though this list is pretty middle of the road, I don't really count it to be a pure representation of the top 100 movies. Just as they did in 1998, the AFI has taken upon itself to write off 99% of cinema history and make a ballot of 400 movies. So, this isn't a list of the best movies of all time, it's really a list of the best movies on this list that the AFI has prepared. I'm not positive the list would be that much different if they were to allow people to simply vote for their favorites. Ostensibly this was done for the benefit of the voter, so they wouldn't have to go to the trouble of actually thinking about what their favorite movies are. But since write-in votes can essentially be discounted, the AFI has taken upon itself to write what it deems suitable for voting. And in any case, if the people involved can't take the time to figure out what they're favorite movies are, why should they even be involved in the vote? Wikipedia has an easy comparison chart of the two lists, but I'd like to know what the differences were on the two ballots. The arbitrariness of the list selection is even more obvious when you look at which sequels were selected. All three Lord of the Rings movies were included, but only the third Harry Potter movie was. Also Terminator 2 and Spider-Man 2 were selected over their predecessors, while Raiders of the Lost Ark is the sole Indiana Jones entry. And although Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back were on there, Return of the Jedi was not.
Of course list making and especially ranked list making is an arbitrary process. The new list has twenty-three films that were replaced by new additions. I suspect if everyone were polled again tomorrow, there'd be at least fifteen. So bickering is fun, but unnecessary. Ostensibly, the list is supposed to reflect American films, but it's really a representation of English language movies (lest we leave out The Third Man--oh, wait). I'm glad that the AFI doesn't include foreign language movies because they would just be grossly underrepresented as they are in the Oscars, the movie theaters, and the moviegoing public's minds. But of course, I'm just hypocrising myself right now.
Canons of all kinds are rightfully criticized as racist, sexist, and elitist. But everyone forgets that they are good introductory tools. Let us begin with these films and move onto more interesting ones later. I was just fifteen when the first list came out and it served as a catalyst to many Blockbuster rentals. I've now seen 72 flicks on that list and 75 on the new one. And I think I'll add Intolerance to my Netflix queue.
Most of the criticism has inevitably settled on how safe and predictable the list has been. Keith Phipps of the AV Club pretty much sums up that viewpoint.
Sure, most of the movies were good but where was the guiding philosophy? The
films seemed to have been picked because very few could object to the choices.
It was like a list of best ice cream flavors that touched on chocolate, vanilla,
and maybe mint but would never acknowledge anything so off-the-beaten-path as
pistachio, much less New York Superfudge.
But I think if you're going to poll 1,500 people on the best films of all time, then a list like this should be considered safe and predictable. When lists like this come out, they're not really the 100 greatest movies of all time. Such a subjective claim as that only belongs to the individual. The cumulative effect of the voting panel of 1,500 means that these aren't the greatest movies of all time, just the 100 movies generally agreed to be considered the greatest of all time. If a movie were to suddenly pop onto the list I would find the voting suspect and wonder what kind of agendas were behind the voting. For example, the only real out of the blue selection this time was Sophie's Choice, which made me think for a second that it got through because, as with the Oscars, Hollywood tends to reward Holocaust movies. But a look at the rest of the list reveals Schindler's List as the only other Holocaust film on the list. To use another less stereotypical example, I suspect Intolerance was voted in over The Birth of a Nation was a reaction to the latter's blatant racism.
Agendas aren't necessarily bad things. I support every effort to give women filmmakers, minority filmmakers, gay filmmakers, (fill in the blank) filmmakers more of a voice. But gosh darn it, if a list is claiming to be the one hundred greatest films of all time, I want to see what's honestly considered to be the greatest films of all time. A middle of the road list like that is a better representation of today's cinema voice. If anything, a vanilla list like the one's proffered by the AFI can only call more attention to the ignorance of women and minority and (fill in the blank) filmmakers, by people remarking upon their absence.
In any case, if you're going to poll, 1,500 people, you should expect the results to be somewhat middle of the road. But even though this list is pretty middle of the road, I don't really count it to be a pure representation of the top 100 movies. Just as they did in 1998, the AFI has taken upon itself to write off 99% of cinema history and make a ballot of 400 movies. So, this isn't a list of the best movies of all time, it's really a list of the best movies on this list that the AFI has prepared. I'm not positive the list would be that much different if they were to allow people to simply vote for their favorites. Ostensibly this was done for the benefit of the voter, so they wouldn't have to go to the trouble of actually thinking about what their favorite movies are. But since write-in votes can essentially be discounted, the AFI has taken upon itself to write what it deems suitable for voting. And in any case, if the people involved can't take the time to figure out what they're favorite movies are, why should they even be involved in the vote? Wikipedia has an easy comparison chart of the two lists, but I'd like to know what the differences were on the two ballots. The arbitrariness of the list selection is even more obvious when you look at which sequels were selected. All three Lord of the Rings movies were included, but only the third Harry Potter movie was. Also Terminator 2 and Spider-Man 2 were selected over their predecessors, while Raiders of the Lost Ark is the sole Indiana Jones entry. And although Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back were on there, Return of the Jedi was not.
Of course list making and especially ranked list making is an arbitrary process. The new list has twenty-three films that were replaced by new additions. I suspect if everyone were polled again tomorrow, there'd be at least fifteen. So bickering is fun, but unnecessary. Ostensibly, the list is supposed to reflect American films, but it's really a representation of English language movies (lest we leave out The Third Man--oh, wait). I'm glad that the AFI doesn't include foreign language movies because they would just be grossly underrepresented as they are in the Oscars, the movie theaters, and the moviegoing public's minds. But of course, I'm just hypocrising myself right now.
Canons of all kinds are rightfully criticized as racist, sexist, and elitist. But everyone forgets that they are good introductory tools. Let us begin with these films and move onto more interesting ones later. I was just fifteen when the first list came out and it served as a catalyst to many Blockbuster rentals. I've now seen 72 flicks on that list and 75 on the new one. And I think I'll add Intolerance to my Netflix queue.
posted by Jesse @ 2:35 AM
<< Home