Sight & Sound

[furbicide]

Thanks for bringing up that article, pistolwink – I was thinking of it myself in the context of Walter Kurtz's posts above.

I wrote this piece on (specifically private) film lists not long before that article was published; while I certainly had little to no intent of starting an argument at the time and framed the piece solely as a (somewhat embarrassing) personal reflection, I realise in hindsight that it serves as something of a direct riposte to Elena's piece, particularly these claims:

Lists pretend to make a claim about the present and the past, but are anti-historical, obsessed with their own moment, with the narrow horizon and tyranny of contemporaneity. They consolidate and reaffirm the hidebound tastes of the already heard.

Lists colonise the mind and impoverish the imagination.
Lists will always disappoint, even as they promise an inexhaustible world, an infinite plenum.
Lists bludgeon the dispossessed with a metric of popularity, as if it is a universal value.
Lists assert property, mastery, possession.
Lists are an anti-film politics.
Lists are metrics.

Metrics are our enemy, and the enemy of art and of political struggle. Every list is by necessity impossible, and must remain unwritten, a private reckoning. The unwritten list tarries with the inevitable vortex of unknowability into which all films will certainly fall, unless we can defend and describe them better, making space for their work as live and active forms.

Suffice it to say I lean much more closely towards your view.

[swo17]

Lists pretend to make a claim about the present and the past, but are anti-historical, obsessed with their own moment, with the narrow horizon and tyranny of contemporaneity. They consolidate and reaffirm the hidebound tastes of the already heard.

Lists colonise the mind and impoverish the imagination.
Lists will always disappoint, even as they promise an inexhaustible world, an infinite plenum.
Lists bludgeon the dispossessed with a metric of popularity, as if it is a universal value.
Lists assert property, mastery, possession.
Lists are an anti-film politics.
Lists are metrics.

Metrics are our enemy, and the enemy of art and of political struggle. Every list is by necessity impossible, and must remain unwritten, a private reckoning. The unwritten list tarries with the inevitable vortex of unknowability into which all films will certainly fall, unless we can defend and describe them better, making space for their work as live and active forms.

This is a list of reasons why lists are bad

[furbicide]

Touché

[bad future]

While cleaning the data as much as I can, here are some fascinating (creative) answers I've found:

• All of Lars von Trier's Movies

• Stan Brakhage's Short Films from '72-'75

• Twin Peaks (TV Series)

• Dekalog

• Vikings (TV Series)

• The Name of the Game (Season 2): The Perfect Image

• The Bill Douglas Trilogy

On the subject of "creative" picks, I just stumbled upon a vote for "John C. Depp, II v. Amber Laura Heard" by Depp, Heard (2022). This from Stanley Schtinter in the critics poll, who also voted for a work-in-progress film from a filmmaker with (as far as I can tell) no released work as yet.

There's also Henry Barnes' votes for BioShock (the video game) and something called "What Makes This Song Stink, Episodes 1-7;" Ruun Nuur for Beychella(!); various votes for music videos including Missy Elliott and Fatboy Slim (the latter from one of the Daniels.)

generally think this is fine and cool and somehow still more serious than the voter who chose recent Best Picture nominees from Adam McKay and Aaron Sorkin...

[pistolwink]

don't forget Sean Gilman's vote for The History of the Seattle Mariners!

[tenia]

At the end of the day... who cares what the poll results are?

Exactly, and that's why it's so great that S&S publish the ballots in full; the individual results and the trends that different pockets of data indicate are far more interesting than the final list.

Actually, I don't think that's so much the case. Sure, going through the individual data often is enlightening, but taken as a whole, the results of the aggregated ballots are, whether we like it or not, indicative of what are the most common fallbacks : whether you're trying to push your specificity (specialists in Brazilian movies only suggesting Brazilian movies or Wes Anderson only suggesting French movies, for instance), or having more Western-canonical tastes, the end results are what stand out as being the most suggested still. And they are indicative, within a certain group ("the persons contacted by S&S for their decennial poll"), of this, which is a cultural aggregate whether we like it or not.

I don't care that much about the poll results in themselves, because I'm aware (and have seen) most of these movies, so it'll give me some ideas for new watchings but not so much (but that's just me (and most likely many of you). It's likely to generate way more ideas for new watchings for people less aware than us, and that's a good thing IMO); they are interesting in what they say overall about what is perceived as being movies' culture's pinnacle, in a world where nobody can have seen everything, and is thus only judging based on the fragment we did saw. And this is interesting, this fragment, what is available most and what isn't, what people participating in S&S poll are more often watching and what they aren't.

Which, by the way :

That said, if I have a objection to lists, it's ones like this one from Slate, the "New Black Film Canon." The problem isn't the supposed purpose (although list-haters would object to its "definitive"-sounding title) but the facts that:

• The list features almost no African films and very few films before the last 30–40 years. It overwhelmingly comprises relatively recent films by African-American directors.

• Even worse (and not coincidentally), the editors seem to have decided that only films currently available on streaming were suitable for the list. Giving this sort of priority to an ephemeral "availability" means huge realms of cinema and many important/incredible/underappreciated films—some of whom I have no doubt the contributors brought up—were left off. (Maybe they should have just titled the list "75 great Black films to stream now.")

is quite symbolic of this : it's a pretty limited article, which says more about who wrote it than its subject, and looks like it's coming from a "what is available online or in the Criterion Collection discs" perspective than what might be a list actually fitting the article's title, meaning it's setting aside any historical perspective in favor of curating a list that could fit an article titled "the best movies by Black directors available in streaming or The Criterion Collection".

It also reinforces the idea that such articles are relying way too much on Criterion's curation, to the point they read as if their writers don't know they're not the only label in the US.

[bad future]

don't forget Sean Gilman's vote for The History of the Seattle Mariners!

Oh yeah; I actually knew about that but didn't even consider it when I was thinking to myself how surprised I was to not have spotted anyone outright voting for a YouTube video or tiktok yet. I guess because I just mentally file that one along with other films I've enjoyed in recent years, and forget its origins and how internet-native so much of the presentation is. Plus you can log it on letterboxd and it's had at least one theatrical screening; at that point does a video become a film?

[Michael Kerpan]

I must say that, in principle I take the side of Walter Kurtz and Elena Gorfinkel. I am pretty allergic to ranked consensus lists. I see them as straitjackets. When folks here do lists here I am far more interested in their individual opinions than on the final results (no disrespect at all to all the work done by those who compile these, however). This probably goes way back. As I recall, while I read innumerable books over school summer vacations, I always tried to avoid reading as much of the prescribed summer reading lists as possible. (As a result I missed out on reading Pride and Prejudice until after I was no longer supposed to read it). FWIW, I like OUR lists much more than the S&S ones (and the ilk).

[swo17]

Jon Bois is a legitimate filmmaker

[Walter Kurtz]

Setting ----

There has an apocalypse and only two people are left in the world. Ms. A is an analytical “left-brained" thinker. Mr. C filters the world though a “right-brained” mental lens that is more free-wheeling, emotive or creative.
------------------------------------------------------------------
EXT. ON THE STREET - DAY

Mr. C approaches Ms A.

Mr. C: Polls are shit!
Ms. A: You are shit! You're an inarticulate unreflective prick!

Mr. C stands there flummoxed without a riposte. He turns and storms away. He goes home and makes a pot.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the majority of people who like to rank and categorize and submit lists to the BFI every ten years are A’s. And the C’s who submit have a big chunk of A in them because no one is 100% either/or and the scale is just shades of gray.

It’s difficult for me to say much more than this because I’d rather be making a pot.

But I enjoy reading this forum because I appreciate all the top level A-type work. I’ve enjoyed this present discussion and the top-level people who contribute.

I’m sorry I came off as an LA prick with my voter satire.

And furbicide... you nailed my feelings with the D-Exec. It wasn’t an ego-splash at all. It was the feeling that something would live on. That something would matter downstream. And that something truly affected someone and created something positive. (BTW… I didn’t ‘fess-up’ that I was the writer until the next morning.)

The only downside is that now I always have to try to create something perfect and I can never get it just right. I am Shit. I am Sisyphus.

[Randall Maysin Again]

Instead of polling thousands of artists and critics, which obviously hasn't worked out for anyone, they should just look to me, Randall Maysin Again, to decide what's on the list. here goes:
The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith.
The Devil's Playground.
To Sleep with Anger.
Breaker Morant.
Chinatown.
The Lady Eve.
Hail the Conquering Hero.
Sunset Blvd.
Blowup.
L'eclisse.
L'avventura.
La strada.
Family Diary.
Nights of Cabiria.
Forbidden Games.
Persona.
Citizens Band.
Melvin and Howard.
They Shoot Horses, Don't They?.
Gosford Park.
Mulholland Drive.
Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me.
The Conversation.
Topsy-Turvy.
Ran.
Seven Samurai.
High and Low.
Fires on the Plain.
Sansho the Bailiff.
Ugetsu.
fuck it, Tokyo Story (i don't really like Tokyo Story that much).
O Brother, Where Art Thou?.
All the President's Men.
Family Life (Ken Loach).
Straw Dogs.
Citizen Kane.
The Magnificent Ambersons.
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.
The African Queen.
The Man Who Would Be King.
The Heiress.
Outcast of the Islands.
The Fallen Idol.
Paths of Glory.
Sweet Smell of Success.
Dr. Strangelove and How I--fuck it.
Rome, Open City.
Rocco and His Brothers.
Christ Stopped at Eboli.
Il caso Mattei.
North by Northwest.
Rebecca.
Strangers on a Train.
Hope and Glory.
The Butcher Boy.
Dead Man Walking.
The Purple Rose of Cairo.
The Unbearable Lightness of Being.
no Fassbinder.
fuck Fassbinder.
Far from Heaven.
Hitler: A Film from Germany.
The War Game.
On the Waterfront.
Wild River.
Lawrence of Arabia.
Hobson's Choice (yes, Hobson's Choice).
Great Expectations.
Scenes from a Marriage, if eligible.
The Passion of Joan of Arc.
The Maltese Falcon.
Singin' in the Rain.
Meet Me in St. Louis.
The Band Wagon.
Once Upon a Time in America.
12 Angry Men.
Inquietude (de Oliveira).
The Wolf of Wall Street.
Million Dollar Baby.
The Apprentice Heel.
Le dossier 51.
not the 400 Blows, honestly it did nothing for me. (maybe i would like a more literary translation, that's possible.)
Jules et Jim.
Pierrot le fou.
A Night at the Opera.
Horse Feathers.
L'Atalante.
The Apartment.
Seven Beauties.
Man of Flowers.
A Woman's Tale.
A City of Sadness.
The Puppetmaster.
Close-Up.
Il sorpasso.
All About My Mother.
Le feu follet.
Murmur of the Heart.
The Clockamker of St. Paul
Que la fete commence...
The Judge and the Assassin.
The Emigrants.
The Flight of the Eagle.
In the Name of the Father.
One Fine Day (Olmi).
Il posto.
The Ascent (Shepitko).
Knife in the Water.
Tante Zita (Enrico).
Au coeur de la vie (Enrico).
The Oak. (Pintilie)
An Unforgettable Summer.
Ma saison preferee.
High Tide (Armstrong).
Sous le soleil de Satan.
Diary of a Country Priest.
A Man Escaped.
Monsieur Hulot's Holiday.
Mon oncle.
Kanal.
The Promised Land. (Wajda. is this eligible?)
Marketa Lazarova.
Closely Watched Trains.
The Adventures of Baron Prasil.
Faithless (Ullmann).
Time Stand Still (Gothar).
141 Minutes from the Unfinished Sentence.
The Boys from Pal Street.
Love (Karoly Makk).
Our Mother's House.
The Night of the Shooting Stars.
Kaos.
M.
Nibelungen I and II.

I could go on, but this is well over 100 films. I haven't even seen some of these films, but surely we can at the very least agree that my list is 10 times better than the Sight & Sound one! You're most welcome! (Unless you don't like my list).

[Michael Kerpan]

Randall -- I give you leave to list an Ozu film you love rather than one that you feel obliged to include.

[beamish14]

I love that you included Hitler: Ein Film aus Deutschland and Citizens Band

[Randall Maysin Again]

Randall -- I give you leave to list an Ozu film you love rather than one that you feel obliged to include.

Haha you're sweet! Your confidence that I love Ozu is endearing--Tokyo Story is actually the only one I've seen and I suspect I would like them a lot if the subtitles were a proper literary translation. It's funny how that famous "Doesn't life suck" exchange is so famous and beloved and it's actually kinda different in the literary translation! I personally like even the literary translation of that little exchange much better than the normal one, but to each his own.

[Michael Kerpan]

Randall -- The actual translation of that exchange is MUCH better than the subtitles indicate. Much more pointed. Not nearly so "serene". The subtitling of this exchange seems sort of slanted to help fit Ozu into the box that early American adopters wanted to fit him into. I'm not aware of any other instances in Ozu where there is such a considerable mismatch between the Japanese that is spoken and the standard American subtitling.

[furbicide]

This is the first I've heard of this – what should the translation have been? (As opposed to "Isn't life disappointing?" / "Yes, nothing but disappointment.")

[Michael Kerpan]

furbicide -- An acquaintance who has done quite a bit of movie subtitling (including a number of ones for Criterion)provided this translation:

“Isn’t it awful, this world?”
“Yes, it’s just one awful thing after another.”

Not totally different -- but the tone is a lot harsher (I think).

[therewillbeblus]

Interesting, I find the current translation to be far more devastating. Sure, the word "awful" is more caustic than "disappointing" and "one awful thing after another" more aggressive than "nothing but disappointment" but, personally, the idea that someone sees life as a series of tangible experiences is at least comprehensible from the existential position they're in. 'I see life as a series of moments happening to me' is depressing, but it also offers definition and that is psychologically grounding. Defining life as "nothing but disappointment" gives me chills. That's so arbitrary, vague, indefinite.. like a giant mass swallowing them up, that they are too powerless to even comprehend. It evokes what I've always felt the scene does so well - a picture of two people still confused about what life is and should be, and susceptible to being ungrounded, despite being self-actualized in their own communal bubble context that's bygone. If the translation was "nothing but one disappointment after another" I'd agree that "awful thing" is a harsher replacement, but there's something about them speaking to a general, enigmatic, yet dominating and all-consuming feeling rather than an agreed-upon schema of palpable events that stirs me. It doesn't take much linguistic deviation to become something else entirely, but while both speak to the tone of the scene, they speak to a different experience of how the characters are engaging with their milieu and their sense of meaning.

[ballmouse]

Given where we are in the 21st century, I'm surprised we don't have some platform for fan made subtitles. They'd be like remixes. I'm sure some people could even create their own cult following. Hell, I'm sure there'd be some humorous Gen Z subtitles that would be a hoot for those who understand memes, emojis, and general TikTok lingo. Though I suppose the combination of rights and attention span given we're in the 21st century aren't going to make this idea a smash hit.

[Michael Kerpan]

I've always felt that there was an undercurrent of black (or at least gray) humor in that moment. Kyoko has sort of been whining about a set of discrete annoyances (right before this exchange). So Noriko's response can be seen as having a teasing quality (at least in part). In any event, I find the Japanese more "complicated" than the English translation suggests.

[hearthesilence]

furbicide -- An acquaintance who has done quite a bit of movie subtitling (including a number of ones for Criterion)provided this translation:

“Isn’t it awful, this world?”
“Yes, it’s just one awful thing after another.”

Not totally different -- but the tone is a lot harsher (I think).

Watering down tone or language has often been the bane of subtitle translation. I think I posted about at least several instances on this forum, with Yang's Yi Yi (one line of castigation), Bergman's Persona (the orgy story) and Melville's Léon Morin, Priest (a line on masturbation) in particular sticking out.

[swo17]

If subtitles translated every bit of nuance they'd be impossible to read in time with the movie

[hearthesilence]

If subtitles translated every bit of nuance they'd be impossible to read in time with the movie

Not so. Just to use the examples I mentioned, a better translation would not have increased the difficulty or time needed to read them. In some cases, there are shorter, easier translations that would have been more accurate if they were open to using four-letter words (which would've matched the crudeness of the tone or language).

[pistolwink]

A few notes after looking over the results:

- If I didn't overlook anything, not one Harold Lloyd feature got a single vote in the poll! Yikes. Maybe the people who would've chosen him picked Chaplin or Keaton films instead? (On that note, Sherlock Jr. now seems tied with The General as the canonical Keaton feature.)

- Surprisingly few votes (in either poll) for the "classic" Disney animated features. Fantasia got the most at 9, but Pinocchio got only 2 critics' votes (5 directors').

- Not a good showing at all for most of the great midcentury Hollywood action/genre directors. Phil Karlson and André de Toth got no votes at all, and only one Sam Fuller film (The Naked Kiss) got more than a single vote. Only three votes total for Anthony Mann! (One for Man of the West, another for The Far Country, and one for Winchester '73.) And re. Don SIegel, aside from a handful of votes for Invasion of the Body Snatchers, only a tiny smattering. Plenty of other classic noirs, westerns, etc. are completely missing.

- Most shocking of all (to me), the almost total neglect of John Woo. Unless I am missing something, no director voted for a single one of his films, and he got only three votes total in the critic's poll (one each for The Killer, Hard Boiled, and Bullet in the Head). Is the absence of some of his best films from HD "restorations" taking its toll? Or is there some other reason he seems to be out of fashion?

- Unsurprisingly (again, to me), Jeanne Dielman was only ahead of Vertigo by a few votes—somewhere around four depending on how many corrections need to be made to the spreadsheet posted above. It only took a couple handfuls of votes to make the top 250. And something like 13% of the respondents in the critics' poll voted for the #1 film. That's a smaller % than in previous decades— IIRC, in 2012 about 23% voted for Vertigo. Perhaps a natural result of expanding the participants, perhaps a reflection of the fact that there are just more films out there. I wouldn't be too quick to credit that to a fracturing of taste.

[MichaelB]

Not so. Just to use the examples I mentioned, a better translation would not have increased the difficulty or time needed to read them. In some cases, there are shorter, easier translations that would have been more accurate if they were open to using four-letter words (which would've matched the crudeness of the tone or language).

The danger in going down that route is that you need to be very confident that the terms that you're using have a similar impact to the terms in the original, and that can sometimes be pretty hard to gauge. In particular, you don't want to use excessively strong language that isn't reflected in the original (for instance, it's a bad idea to replace the French "con" with "cunt" - similar origin/meaning, very different impact), which I suspect is why many subtitlers prefer to err in the opposite direction.

And of course there are loads of instances where translations require footnotes that are impractical to supply. For instance, an oft-cited example of a hilarious Hong Kong theatrical subtitle is "My brother's not easy to get on with; he's tear and I have mucus" (from Tiger On Beat), but I suspect that's pretty much a literal translation of what's being said - the problem is that in order to understand it you need to be versed in the Chinese concept of the body being made up of various humours that can be in and out of balance. Similarly, I gather Parasite has loads of subtle linguistic signifiers of social status that simply don't work in direct English translation.

This can even be true of hard-of-hearing subtitles of films in a strong local dialect - my own direct experience being with creating the subs for Black Joy (lots of Guyanese and Jamaican patois), Orphans (a front runner for the title of the most Glaswegian film ever made) and Love on the Dole (1930s Salford). In all cases, I had to balance a desire for accuracy with a need for easy graspability on the part of the reader - in particular, I couldn't go down the phonetic transcription route, a luxury that Love on the Dole's original author Walter Greenwood was able to indulge in (which is why his novel was pretty useless as a reference for me!).