Among things tackled in this episode, co-starring frequent guests Shira Selkowits and Jeff Hadzinsky:

- Total Recall, science fiction worlds, and critical dogpiling
- Sight and Sound poll: is it relevant to non-critics? Were nearly all of the best films ever made made before 1975?
- how devoted a Dick fan is Leighton?
- which of the three major films coming out this weekend will make the most money?
- what @FunniestMovie retweet used the hashtag #ButMySoulIsBlackAsNight?
- can Shira and Jeff conquer a Sight and Sound list edition of The Seven?

All this and much more on a much shorter L&L Show this week.

Please please please please take the 30 seconds it takes to leave us an iTunes review. It will help climb us up on the iTunes Movie Podcast list the more reviews we have. So give us a shout, people!

Thanks!

http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-long-and-late-movie-show/id498789655

http://twitter.com/RussellHFilm
http://thepasswordisswordfish.com
http://letterboxd.com/russellhfilm/films/diary/by/release/

Kind of surprised that you haven't heard of Man With a Movie Camera, Frank. Aren't you and Duval Spit homeboys? He's made a handful of posts about the They Shot Pictures Greatest 1,000 over the years and I figured that you at least browsed the list. The Vertov placed 97th in the most recent 1,000 and 102nd and 101st in the previous 2 compilations.


re: Mulholland Drive

It did very well in the Best of Decade polls. It came in #1 in the Film Comment and IndieWire polls, and many of the participants in those are sure to be S & S voters. It also topped LA Film critics' poll and some other smaller polls.


re: Sunrise

Yeah, as you said, Frank, I don't think we should interpret its finish as the majority of critics saying that only 4 films since 1927 surpass it. As you noted, if that's how things were tallied, its placement was due to # of mentions irrespective of rank. Like, it could've placed near the bottom of many ballots, but it just got mentioned a lot. We'll see, though. The critics' ballots go online, I think, on the 15th and the directors' on the 22nd. The issue is already out in the UK but don't know when it hits US shelves.


re: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly's innovation

It wasn't the first to do that with offscreen dialogue.



re: lack of films post-1975

Just give it time. Let the older critics die, and the younger ones (those who are 40 yo and younger) will take the reins in the following decades. Its just natural to favor works made when one is an adolescent and up to 50-something.


re: "Best"/"Greatest"

Nick James of S & S Mag wrote:

As a qualification of what ‘greatest’ means, our invitation letter stated, “We leave that open to your interpretation. You might choose the ten films you feel are most important to film history, or the ten that represent the aesthetic pinnacles of achievement, or indeed the ten films that have had the biggest impact on your own view of cinema.”


I do think that importance to film history factored in a lot on lots of the choices in the minds of many voters. So, while the poll is said to be about the "greatest" films..."greatest" is a fluid term even within a voter's ballot. Like, historical importance/innovation could factor in heavily for film C but not so much for 7 of the remaining 9 on the ballot.

IMO, the poll should have more specific, narrower criteria. Or they should come up with a formula or an algorithm or something.

>Kind of surprised that you haven't heard of Man With a Movie
>Camera, Frank. Aren't you and Duval Spit homeboys? He's made a
>handful of posts about the They Shot Pictures Greatest 1,000
>over the years and I figured that you at least browsed the
>list. The Vertov placed 97th in the most recent 1,000 and
>102nd and 101st in the previous 2 compilations.

Yeah, I think I admitted some degree of embarrassment if I recall. Spit is definitely my man (he's the friend I referenced talking about the list too... we had a good hour convo about it), but he's seen waaaaay more of the old stuff. My general expertise is more of the 1990s and forward-- my proposed thesis for grad school was about the indie movement of Miramax and forward, so in addition to my age influencing what I'd seen, I went out of my way and have continued to go out of my way to see things of the last twenty years.

Spit's been good about sending me recs for older films, and I've slowly but surely been expanding what I've seen from the older generations predominantly influenced by what he likes, honestly. I tried tackling the TSPDT in the summers during college... but it's been slow going for seeing the "classics" since then, I'm afraid. Only 15 of the 50 on this S&S poll... luckily after my talk with Spit, he's pointed me towards ones on the list he thinks in particular I'd enjoy, so I've got a good avenue to start traveling down to get acquainted.

>re: Mulholland Drive
>
>It did very well in the Best of Decade polls. It came in #1 in
>the Film Comment and IndieWire polls, and many of the
>participants in those are sure to be S & S voters. It also
>topped LA Film critics' poll and some other smaller polls.

Oh I have no beef with its inclusion here... I'm slightly surprised to find it above somewhat older critical favorites (maybe something by the Coens or perhaps Boogie Nights), but Leighton's the one who isn't a fan.

>re: Sunrise
>
>Yeah, as you said, Frank, I don't think we should interpret
>its finish as the majority of critics saying that only 4 films
>since 1927 surpass it. As you noted, if that's how things were
>tallied, its placement was due to # of mentions irrespective
>of rank. Like, it could've placed near the bottom of many
>ballots, but it just got mentioned a lot. We'll see, though.
>The critics' ballots go online, I think, on the 15th and the
>directors' on the 22nd. The issue is already out in the UK but
>don't know when it hits US shelves.

Yeah, and I've just rented it so I'll be seeing it soon so I can have an actual opinion on the film itself. While I've certainly enjoyed some of the silent cinema I've seen, I struggle with the idea that silent cinema would take up multiple spots on a critic's list... and since a number of silents are so high, that means that undoubtedly some critics find more than one film before, say, 1935 (I don't have the dates in front of me of when some of the later silent classics were made... I feel like 35 is late, but whatever) to be among their ten best ever. I really struggle to grasp that. Nothing's been better in the last 80 years? Word?

Seeing as how Rotten Tomatoes exposes nearly weekly a level of "groupthink" among the critical circles, I really do wonder when seeing individual lists how many critics really do love Sunrise AND Battleship Potemkin and only think eight talkies are on their level... or how many critics just value innovation so high that they feel it should be rewarded... or how many simply want to look smarter and more sophisticated than the rest (which I think plays a large part in the lack of straight up comedies on the list).

>re: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly's innovation
>
>It wasn't the first to do that with offscreen dialogue.

I didn't think so, but I wasn't going to correct her, lol. Do we know what was so I can bring it up next ep?

>re: lack of films post-1975
>
>Just give it time. Let the older critics die, and the younger
>ones (those who are 40 yo and younger) will take the reins in
>the following decades. Its just natural to favor works made
>when one is an adolescent and up to 50-something.

You would think that, but this decade with the expansion of the critics allowed to vote, the average age unquestionably got lower, and if anything, the films at the top got even older and comedies dropped lower. It's like a battle between the young critics to establish who is more serious and highbrow than the rest. Singin In The Rain drops ten slots? Chaplin is down at the bottom of the Top 50? Word?

>re: "Best"/"Greatest"
>
>Nick James of S & S Mag wrote:
>
>As a qualification of what ‘greatest’ means, our invitation
>letter stated, “We leave that open to your interpretation. You
>might choose the ten films you feel are most important to film
>history, or the ten that represent the aesthetic pinnacles of
>achievement, or indeed the ten films that have had the biggest
>impact on your own view of cinema.”
>
>
>I do think that importance to film history factored in a lot
>on lots of the choices in the minds of many voters. So, while
>the poll is said to be about the "greatest" films..."greatest"
>is a fluid term even within a voter's ballot. Like, historical
>importance/innovation could factor in heavily for film C but
>not so much for 7 of the remaining 9 on the ballot.
>
>IMO, the poll should have more specific, narrower criteria. Or
>they should come up with a formula or an algorithm or
>something.

Yeah, the "film history" argument is dicey if the list is going to be referred to as the greatest films of all time. I really do think the George Mikan as the greatest center of all time argument is a pretty apt comparison-- just because you were the first to do it doesn't make you the best to do it.

While I'm unsure if you held my hand to the fire what movies of the last twenty-five years I would include save a couple of gimmes, I find it hard to believe that so few critics are willing to go to bat for some modern greats. Even though I disagreed with Ebert's Tree of Life selection, I was glad he was trying to put something new in the mix.

I'm definitely interested in seeing the individual critic/director breakdowns.

Thanks for listening, for real... I wish I could've had Spit on or someone who'd seen more of the films so we could've talked more about it-- I'm sure I'll give updates as I see more of the films on this list over the coming month or two. (But also realistically, we usually get most of our listeners on weeks when something big hits the box office, so we wouldn't get our usual listening numbers if we had an FW Murnau episode, sadly.)

http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-long-and-late-movie-show/id498789655

http://twitter.com/RussellHFilm
http://thepasswordisswordfish.com
http://letterboxd.com/russellhfilm/films/diary/by/release/

>>re: Mulholland Drive

>Oh I have no beef with its inclusion here... I'm slightly
>surprised to find it above somewhat older critical favorites
>(maybe something by the Coens or perhaps Boogie Nights), but
>Leighton's the one who isn't a fan.

Oh, no, I'm not defending the film. Just saying that, in retrospect, perhaps Mulholland's inclusion is not such a surprise after all.


>You would think that, but this decade with the expansion of
>the critics allowed to vote, the average age unquestionably
>got lower

Maybe the expansion just meant more old critics.


>Yeah, the "film history" argument is dicey if the list is
>going to be referred to as the greatest films of all time. I
>really do think the George Mikan as the greatest center of all
>time argument is a pretty apt comparison-- just because you
>were the first to do it doesn't make you the best to do it.

I don't think we should read the poll results as saying that majority of the voters think that pre-75 movies are better than post-75 ones because of the room S & S gave voters in regards to criteria.

I mean, we got voters like Jonathan Rosenbaum who said that he's not included any films that were on his 82, 92, and 02 ballots. And in 02, he said, "assume it's no longer necessary to mention Chaplin, Godard, Hitchcock, Ozu, Renoir or Welles."

Also, I think Shira brought up the test of time point or something like that. That's another thing I think many voters are heavily influenced by which would make them reluctant to include newer films. Though, not test of time in terms of what everything thinks about it years from now, but individually in that does it/will it hold up for said voter.

...must...stay ahead...of schedule...

and of course
look at these things:
Recent show - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyNJgTalegs
Recent article - http://www.rapconqueso.com/2012/05/underneath-willie-evans-jr/
New Tough Junkie https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/missing/id594220223

Potemkin is a great achievement,
Sunrise is a great movie.

and of course
look at these things:
Recent show - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyNJgTalegs
Recent article - http://www.rapconqueso.com/2012/05/underneath-willie-evans-jr/
New Tough Junkie https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/missing/id594220223

>Seeing as how Rotten Tomatoes exposes nearly weekly a level of
>"groupthink" among the critical circles, I really do wonder
>when seeing individual lists how many critics really do love
>Sunrise AND Battleship Potemkin and only think eight talkies
>are on their level... or how many critics just value
>innovation so high that they feel it should be rewarded... or
>how many simply want to look smarter and more sophisticated
>than the rest (which I think plays a large part in the lack of
>straight up comedies on the list).

Honestly, I don't really think there is a ton of groupthink at play here. As I mentioned in the other thread, over 81.5% of respondents DIDN'T vote for Citizen Kane, and it still came in 2nd (it showed up on like 150 ballots our of 846.)

Like, here's Richard Corliss' list:
Chungking Express
Citizen Kane
The Lady Eve
Histoire(s) du cinema
Mouchette
Psycho
Pyaasa
The Searchers
The Seventh Seal
WALL-E

compared to Manhola Dargis:
Au hasard Balthazar
Barry Lyndon
Flowers of Shanghai
Fracis
Godfather II
Little Stabs at Happiness
Masculin feminin
There Will be Blood
Touch of Evil
The Wizard of Oz

compared to David Thompson
Blue Velvet
Celine and Julie Go Boating
Citizen Kane
The Conformist
Hiroshima mon amour
His Girl Friday
Pierot le fou
The Rules of the Game
The Shop around the Corner
Ugetsu monogatari

Compared to Dave Kehr
Vertigo
The Searchers
Le Mephris
Journey to Italy
The Big Trail
Play Time
Make Way for Tomorrow
Sansho dayu
Intolerance
Docks of New York

I only posted those because I think it illustrates a point: each one of them only has one or maybe two movies that made it to the top 10. For the most part, those lists are very different. But when the voting body is expanded so much (from 150 to almost 850), and everybody votes for random shit but throws one or two established masterpieces on their lists (like Kane or Rules), those are the ones that end up getting the most votes and rise to the top.

The #10 movie (8 1/2) only got 64 total votes out of 846 ballots cast. 92% of people didn't vote for it (!) and it made the Top 10. Only 30-40 votes separated it from, say, Blade Runner.

>You would think that, but this decade with the expansion of
>the critics allowed to vote, the average age unquestionably
>got lower, and if anything, the films at the top got even
>older and comedies dropped lower. It's like a battle between
>the young critics to establish who is more serious and
>highbrow than the rest. Singin In The Rain drops ten slots?
>Chaplin is down at the bottom of the Top 50? Word?

That's inaccurate. There are more films from the 70s or newer on this list (about 25% of it) and less from the 20s, 30s, and 40s. It's getting younger, it just takes a long ass time and I'm OK with that. Even the #1 spot got nearly 20 years younger.

>Yeah, the "film history" argument is dicey if the list is
>going to be referred to as the greatest films of all time. I
>really do think the George Mikan as the greatest center of all
>time argument is a pretty apt comparison-- just because you
>were the first to do it doesn't make you the best to do it.

I disagree with that analogy, because some of those films literally invented or improved techniques that became crucial elements of cinematic grammar that are still being used today. Nobody models their post game in George Mikan's image. Praising something like Potempkin for its innovation is more like praising Alexander Graham Bell for inventing the telephone instead of recognizing the dude who invented the cordless (rightfully so).

It's not that "greatest" is the wrong word, it's that some people equate greatness with innovation and originality and influence, which I don't see a problem with. If we were going to list the 10 greatest technological achievements of all time, don't you think the printing press, electric lighting, automobiles, airplanes, and telephones would make the cut?

I haven't heard the podcast yet, though I do occasionally listen in and enjoy it. I'll be sure to check this one out...

----

>>Seeing as how Rotten Tomatoes exposes nearly weekly a level
>of
>>"groupthink" among the critical circles, I really do wonder
>>when seeing individual lists how many critics really do love
>>Sunrise AND Battleship Potemkin and only think eight talkies
>>are on their level... or how many critics just value
>>innovation so high that they feel it should be rewarded...
>or
>>how many simply want to look smarter and more sophisticated
>>than the rest (which I think plays a large part in the lack
>of
>>straight up comedies on the list).
>
>Honestly, I don't really think there is a ton of groupthink at
>play here. As I mentioned in the other thread, over 81.5% of
>respondents DIDN'T vote for Citizen Kane, and it still came in
>2nd (it showed up on like 150 ballots our of 846.)
>
>Like, here's Richard Corliss' list:
>Chungking Express
>Citizen Kane
>The Lady Eve
>Histoire(s) du cinema
>Mouchette
>Psycho
>Pyaasa
>The Searchers
>The Seventh Seal
>WALL-E
>
>compared to Manhola Dargis:
>Au hasard Balthazar
>Barry Lyndon
>Flowers of Shanghai
>Fracis
>Godfather II
>Little Stabs at Happiness
>Masculin feminin
>There Will be Blood
>Touch of Evil
>The Wizard of Oz
>
>compared to David Thompson
>Blue Velvet
>Celine and Julie Go Boating
>Citizen Kane
>The Conformist
>Hiroshima mon amour
>His Girl Friday
>Pierot le fou
>The Rules of the Game
>The Shop around the Corner
>Ugetsu monogatari
>
>Compared to Dave Kehr
>Vertigo
>The Searchers
>Le Mephris
>Journey to Italy
>The Big Trail
>Play Time
>Make Way for Tomorrow
>Sansho dayu
>Intolerance
>Docks of New York
>
>I only posted those because I think it illustrates a point:
>each one of them only has one or maybe two movies that made it
>to the top 10. For the most part, those lists are very
>different. But when the voting body is expanded so much (from
>150 to almost 850), and everybody votes for random shit but
>throws one or two established masterpieces on their lists
>(like Kane or Rules), those are the ones that end up getting
>the most votes and rise to the top.
>
>The #10 movie (8 1/2) only got 64 total votes out of 846
>ballots cast. 92% of people didn't vote for it (!) and it
>made the Top 10. Only 30-40 votes separated it from, say,
>Blade Runner.

Then is this system the best way to determine it? Should ranking come into play?

I debate this with the Spilled Lattes. There are movies that make the top three because three or four people put the film at #1. There are movies that top that one because seven or eight people put it in the third or fourth best slot... so does that make it the best? There's a debate there as well, I suppose.

>>You would think that, but this decade with the expansion of
>>the critics allowed to vote, the average age unquestionably
>>got lower, and if anything, the films at the top got even
>>older and comedies dropped lower. It's like a battle between
>>the young critics to establish who is more serious and
>>highbrow than the rest. Singin In The Rain drops ten slots?
>>Chaplin is down at the bottom of the Top 50? Word?
>
>That's inaccurate. There are more films from the 70s or newer
>on this list (about 25% of it) and less from the 20s, 30s, and
>40s. It's getting younger, it just takes a long ass time and
>I'm OK with that. Even the #1 spot got nearly 20 years
>younger.

Well, including the 70s is somewhat unfair, because most people do hold that as a real renaissance of cinema. I don't mind only... what, 3 films from 1990 and after on the list? 4? I'm just somewhat surprised. It seems that many people included a selection from that era, there's just so much disagreement on what film belongs.

Still doesn't answer the comedy question though, which I find even more troubling than the question of newer vs. older.


>>Yeah, the "film history" argument is dicey if the list is
>>going to be referred to as the greatest films of all time. I
>>really do think the George Mikan as the greatest center of
>all
>>time argument is a pretty apt comparison-- just because you
>>were the first to do it doesn't make you the best to do it.
>
>I disagree with that analogy, because some of those films
>literally invented or improved techniques that became crucial
>elements of cinematic grammar that are still being used today.
> Nobody models their post game in George Mikan's image.
>Praising something like Potempkin for its innovation is more
>like praising Alexander Graham Bell for inventing the
>telephone instead of recognizing the dude who invented the
>cordless (rightfully so).

But if your list is for the greatest telephone, wouldn't you choose the cordless first? Haha, I just wonder if the parameters need to be narrowed-- the public views this list as "greatest films ever," so when Potemkin is above Apocalypse Now, and the layman on a whim decides to see something from this list and stumbles upon Potemkin, he's gonna be fucking baffled. It just goes back to the question: is this list solely for critics or for everyone? Critics will see Potemkin and begrudgingly understand it's there solely due to innovation. Others won't.

>It's not that "greatest" is the wrong word, it's that some
>people equate greatness with innovation and originality and
>influence, which I don't see a problem with. If we were going
>to list the 10 greatest technological achievements of all
>time, don't you think the printing press, electric lighting,
>automobiles, airplanes, and telephones would make the cut?

Achievement is different than film, I believe. The Jazz Singer didn't make the list, nor should it, etc.

>I haven't heard the podcast yet, though I do occasionally
>listen in and enjoy it. I'll be sure to check this one
>out...

Please do! I think I've seen more than the others on the podcast, so they're even more laymannish and dismissive of the list than I am, haha. And I don't dismiss it-- I just wonder if it's critical navel-gazing or if it actually serves a larger purpose.

http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-long-and-late-movie-show/id498789655

http://twitter.com/RussellHFilm
http://thepasswordisswordfish.com
http://letterboxd.com/russellhfilm/films/diary/by/release/

Cuz most younger non-cinephile people admit they only see Citizen Kane because they've heard it's the "greatest movie ever" and wanna hear what the fuss is about. So it's obviously got some impact on more than simply critics.

I do think if people could easily access a paragraph on each choice and a few examples of who picked it, the way TSPDT does, it would be more easily defined or accessible to the public, i.e. "the description of #4 sounds good and Director X who I love loves #8, so I should try those, but #5 sounds boring to me, I'll wait on that," etc.

http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-long-and-late-movie-show/id498789655

http://twitter.com/RussellHFilm
http://thepasswordisswordfish.com
http://letterboxd.com/russellhfilm/films/diary/by/release/

and of course
look at these things:
Recent show - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyNJgTalegs
Recent article - http://www.rapconqueso.com/2012/05/underneath-willie-evans-jr/
New Tough Junkie https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/missing/id594220223

>Then is this system the best way to determine it? Should
>ranking come into play?
>
>I debate this with the Spilled Lattes. There are movies that
>make the top three because three or four people put the film
>at #1. There are movies that top that one because seven or
>eight people put it in the third or fourth best slot... so
>does that make it the best? There's a debate there as well, I
>suppose.

Personally, I think the "each vote equals one point" method is right way to go, especially on something as far-reaching as the S&S list. To me, the list worked exactly like it was supposed to. If out of 850 people, 190 people thought Vertigo was one of the 10 best movies ever and only 10 people thought There Will be Blood was one of the 10 best movies ever, so be it. It took Vertigo 54 years and 6 polls to make the #1 spot. Let There Will be Blood wait it's turn. It'll climb the list eventually.

(For the Spilled Lattes, I can see the point of the ranking system, although it might be interesting to try doing it differently one year. It would also probably be easier to tally the results, not to mention less difficult to compose the lists.)

>Still doesn't answer the comedy question though, which I find
>even more troubling than the question of newer vs. older.

One thing that probably factors into the comedy drought: the voters are from all of the world, voting on films from all of the world. I'm not sure I've ever watched a foreign comedy, but I can only assume that most of the factors that really make comedy great (timing, smart/clever wordplay, not to mention cultural tastes) are totally destroyed when you're reading subtitles the whole time. Can you really picture someone who speaks Japanese finding In the Loop or even something like Annie Hall funny if they were reading subtitles the whole time? Wouldn't it get lost in translation?

To me, it's not surprise that the comedies that actually make the list are silent ones. All that shit I just said above doesn't apply! The beauty of silent cinema is that it's universal. That same Japanese speaker who wouldn't have understood the nuance of some of the comedies I mentioned would probably still enjoy The General or Sherlock Jr. as much as you or I.

(For example, if you look at AFI's 100 greatest American films list, there are a lot more comedies than there are here. http://www.afi.com/100years/movies.aspx

>But if your list is for the greatest telephone, wouldn't you
>choose the cordless first? Haha, I just wonder if the
>parameters need to be narrowed-- the public views this list as
>"greatest films ever," so when Potemkin is above Apocalypse
>Now, and the layman on a whim decides to see something from
>this list and stumbles upon Potemkin, he's gonna be fucking
>baffled. It just goes back to the question: is this list
>solely for critics or for everyone? Critics will see Potemkin
>and begrudgingly understand it's there solely due to
>innovation. Others won't.

I agree with Sponge. It's not just for critics, but it's a self-selecting audience. The only people who care about this list are the kind of people who care about this list. I'm not worried about innocent bystanders being lead astray into some esoteric movie rentals, because I highly doubt they're even looking at this list.

Honestly, the best thing about these lists to me is that they're snapshots of what people were thinking at a given time. It's more interesting to me to watch a movie's trajectory over the years than to debate it's relative spot on the 2012 list.

It's interesting to me to see how Vertigo has steadily accumulated support over a long period of time. Why? Was it ahead of it's time? Did it just need that long for it's greatest to be fully appreciated and realized? Conversely, The Magnificent Ambersons made the top 10 on two separate occasions, and now it barely cracks the top 100. I'm more curious as to what has hurt it's critical reputation over the last 30 years than as to why it finished where it did this year.

>Please do!

Looking forward to it.

----