> I do love to be challenged by films i watch
>>>(Mulholland Dr. being an example), but really how valuable
>>are
>>>Lynch's visual enigma's to the language of film. Does it
>not
>>>say something about the film when 7 out of 10 people are
>not
>>>going to enjoy watching it?
>>
>>MULHOLLAND DRIVE is a disingenuous example. It's not one of
>>the 50 best films ever, it's not even Lynch's best film. The
>>fact that it made the discussion, much less the list is a
>>mystery to me. I like the movie, I find it enjoyable, but
>it's
>>not doing anything for the state of the art. Oddly enough,
>>Bergman's PERSONA - the clear inspiration behind MULHOLLAND
>>DRIVE - is more enjoyable, and definitely more important.
>
>that my friend is a copeth of the plea. all Lynch's films
>exist within the strange high-art spectrum of film making. it
>only serves to validate those of us who are in on the "visual
>lineages" and invested in teasing out the psychological
>aspects of the plot. yes we shouldn't have to have our hands
>held about everything within a film's world, but when those
>worlds excludes everyday working people, there is a flaw in
>the creative product that diminishes it's value

It's not plea copping, it's only on the list because it's the most visually accessible (aka, 2 hot chics roaming L.A.) of Lynch's movies. It's not advancing the artform because it's difficult. 2001 advances the artform because it's difficult. So you can't really use this movie in regards to your "enjoyment" question. It's not good enough to be on the list. MULHOLLAND DRIVE is an enjoyable movie - but it didn't make movies that came after it any better. It's on the list because it's a recent film, not because of what it is or has done.

>>I don't find it bourgeois and non-inclusive. We're talking
>the
>>best of the best, not just films you like that you want
>other
>>people to see. And if someone's taking the time to put such
>a
>>list together (particularly the benchmark institution for
>such
>>a thing), then it should reflect that.
>
>what! that's exactly what is taking place when the
>archive/canon is from specific eras and groups of people. it
>excludes the voices of the multitude. this is what happened in
>literature from the 1920s to 1980s. the "othered" voices had
>to write against the canon, specifically because the list of
>the "best of" stuck to a particular voice or style

Unless you like bland chicken, you don't poll everyone on what they want for lunch. You poll those who know. You want "representative," not "multitude."

>>I certainly don't think younger people should simply nod in
>>agreement with what the greats are. But if we want to talk
>>truthful, how many great movies have been in made in a
>20-year
>>old's lifetime that seriously rivals great films that
>predate
>>them?
>
>actually quite a few.

You can't name more than a dozen from the past 30 that have earned the right to be called one of the 50 best. Neither can anyone else. Because there aren't more than a dozen. In 30 years, only a dozen films are worth discussion on that matter. That sucks, especially considering all the cool shit we can do with film, but it's how it is. You can certainly think of hundreds of great films from the last 30 years, but we're not talking great, we're talking the 50 best ever.

>>The unspoken truth here is that film, as an artistic medium
>>(which is what S&S is making a list about) has declined
>>greatly in recent memory. Movies aren't as good as they used
>>to be. People seem at odds with this, and it's why they call
>>for more contemporary films to be recognized. But they
>really
>>don't hold the weight.
>
>wrong. film was better when people of color, woman and gays
>where non-existent, stereo-typed or put to the peripheries of
>narrative? or where technology itself limited the type of
>stories and worlds that could be constructed? that is just
>blatantly false. the type of movie, great or cliche, is what
>has been brought to the door of the gate keepers, and they're
>so invested in their word/pedagogy/archive that they make lame
>attempts to convince me that 2001 is a superior film to La
>Haine, sorry that's just not real.

If it's about race, then where are the great black films that deserve to be on this list? If it's about gays, then where are the great gay films that deserve to be on the list? If it's about technology, where are the technological films that deserve to be on the list?
Bear in mind, the movies on the list have to be more than "a great black/gay/technological" film. They've got to be great films independent of their strong suit. One trick ponies don't make the race.
LA HAINE is a great film, but it's got nothing on 2001. Story, effects, importance to the art, performance (LA HAINE's got twice as many acting performances, but none of them do what the voiceover in 2001 does). 2001 revolutionized film. You don't see films modeled after LA HAINE.

>>No, this type of criticism serves the art of filmmaking.
>
>this inherently means film criticism and pedagogy is failing
>if the old guard still hold the fort on what is in the canon,
>but the following years have produced shit. that's a
>contradiction

No, it means you got to BEAT the champ to wear the belt. And there ain't much since the '70s that beats these.
Again, we're talking the greatest EVER. There are recent films that deserve such recognition, but not many. Again, do the LAWRENCE OF ARABIA test. If LOA isn't good enough to make it, what recent film is? What recent film succeeds in more areas that LOA? Then take that short list of films and compare it to the 50 on here. Most if not all of those films on that short list won't make the cut (despite the questionable films on the S&S Top 50).



"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams