Being mad that there's a ranking of great movies with which you disagree implies that in the end there is only ONE, CANONICAL "Greatest" list. Which means that you CAN know all the greatest movies, that ALL KNOWLEDGE is within your terrestrial grasp.
Which... C'mon fam. That's ridiculous.
We need to stop placing weight on "the greatest" and humbly concede that there is an ever-morphing canon from which we can always shape and change and more importantly challenge. Which involves dropping the ego and trying new things, usually from people not like us. I wish people like Paul Schrader realized this.
Absolutely. I'm almost trying to be sympathetic to the idea that our silly brains comprehend lists/hierarchy so much better than just in-depth, nuanced vocabulary but that doesn't mean that I don't feel allergic to the idea of pushing back against this right brain-ed societal tendency. I find it fun and harmless when it's a list/guide for jokes but when elitists, gatekeepers or even director titans make claims like this, it doesn't really celebrate diverse work (even though he wanted to make that point and failed). Honestly, I just find it fascinating how bruised people feel after not seeing their all time fave at the top again and again. That irrational fear of feeling..invalidated? like relax
Certainly choosing a number from 1 to 10 is a weak exercise and the average of those ratings should not be the canon. Shawshank or the Godfather disappoint few people.
I do agree with Schrader that the Jeanne Dielmann triumph was probably orchestrated. The effort to reconstruct the canon, or “disrupt the white male hegemony”, as literary canon revisionists say, is a big problem for me as it carries a kind of bitterness. The women and minorities who vote for Chantal Akerman or Agnes Varda as the greatest filmmaker in history are attempting provocation and seeing politics in everything.
They want to tear down films made by white men that have become consensus classics( as decided by white men) but they cannot articulate even why those films are revered. If you asked them why “The Third Man” is so insightful regarding European history and paranoia and the vacuum of a state and the rule of law, they cannot think through that.
Personally, I love “Wanda”, the Barbara Loden film. Also “Portrait of a Lady on Fire” and Elaine Mays films. Those movies deserve to be toward the top of any list. But they are not better written than “Chinatown” or more imaginative than “Amadeus” or more philosophically stimulating than “Stalker.” And the people who say, as you do, that women directed films are better “for them” do not understand why other classic films are great. They have only learned how to topple consensus great films and lift up films that center women, minorities. They are cultural vandals, enjoying toppling great works because of their political motivation. They should focus on carving out a place for their fav films that center women, but stop trying to tear down the “Citizen Kanes” and “8 1/2s” just so they can get revenge on now dead film critics who made the canon.
Thank you so much for your comment, Harry and for sharing some incredible films in here. I agree. I think the issue is we're not using the right words. We're not having productive conversations about art when we use better/worse/lower/higher. This is not how art can be perceived - it's abstract, it's emotional, not mathematical. But this is how our brains work and this is what they want us to push towards: one more review, one more star, one more ranking. I think it's totally fair when people make up their own lists and have their personal faves (harmless imo) but when people lose their sh*t over one simple ranking that dares to challenge the usual suspects, we have a problem. Let art be art. Let undiscovered art be discovered. Let others have different taste. Let others have different 'rankings'. The world is not going to collapse.
I am sure many genuinely prefer "Jeanne Dielman", but I think for others there are politics and a pleasure in burning down the previous consensus great films. Of course, the politics go the other way as well. Schrader saying "Oppenheimer" is one of the best films of the century is a perfect example of a very conservative guy loving a movie about a historically important white man made in a "significant", realist way. I thought Oppenheimer was a failure and don't like Nolan in general. And even Schrader, who wrote some great films like "Taxi Driver" is a completely unskilled, heavy handed director often.
The rigidity of film criticism (and conversely, adulation) really speaks to how boxed-in, often by design, these avenues have become. Which is ironic, in a way, isn't it?
Just as a baseline, film, music, any artistic endeavour - we should constantly be looking to them and most importantly, anything they present that is outside of our personal experience, in forever expanding our creative horizons. But comfortability has become the operating word for so many: understanding why (and respecting why) but then challenging those perceptions is so important.
I'll admit though, openly, that I subscribe to that thinking myself to some extent, in putting an out-of-ten rating on everything I watch and review, including on my work here, on Substack. And honestly, it is something I've done for so long, just out of a sense of personal habit ("well, this worked for me but this didn't, so there's 0.2 points shaved off", etc), I've never given too much thought to how limiting it can be - but you're absolutely right.
Something to think on, at the very least.
(Also, well done recommending Jeanne Dielman - I haven't watched it in years but have no doubt I would appreciate more now, with a sharper eye).
First, thank you for such a thoughtful response. Your point about comfort being the operating word really struck me – it's fascinating how we've developed these numerical scaffolds to help us process art, isn't it? I totally get it. There's something reassuring about being able to quantify our reactions, to feel like we can pin down exactly why something worked or didn't.
(Confession: I still have a spreadsheet somewhere with every final scene I watched during lockdown, complete with ratings down to decimal points. The hubris of boredom!)
But what I love about your comment is the openness to questioning these habits we've developed as critics. It's not about abolishing ratings or saying they're inherently bad – they can be useful shorthand, especially when we're trying to communicate quickly with readers. The trap is when they become containers that limit rather than tools that illuminate.
And speaking of illumination – yes to revisiting Jeanne Dielman! Really appreciate you engaging with this piece so openly. It's exactly these kinds of reflective conversations about how we process and discuss art that I was hoping to create ❤️
"Containers that limit rather than tools that illuminate", though - wonderfully said.
There really is some truth in finding a healthy balance, more so in this specific instance. Having faith in your own process without being closed off to growth. I suppose that's where I'm coming from, as I always try too.
As creatives, critics, there is always someone out there who can teach us, be it through their writing, their perspectives or a personal maturity in an area that outshines our own.
The day we stop learning, whatever the metric, is the day we limit ourselves to possibility. And we should never want that.
Can you please make this entire essay into a chapbook so I can pass it out to strangers on the street? This is what gets passed around at the start of a revolution. Sophie I have no words right now for how wonderful, necessary, and timely this is but as they come to me I'll be sure to send them your way.
Another wonderful piece, Sophie. This discussion reminds me of an old clip from American Bandstand in which one of the teenagers gives the song an 85 because "I can dance to it." This seems the most compelling way of "ranking" a film-going or wine-drinking or other emotional pursuit. How did this thing make me feel? How did it change the way I look at things? How have I grown after experiencing it?
In my business, wine-making, the same boring, meaningless faux-objective point score, end-of-year-best-of list building, is de riguer. Rarely is the context taken into account...the food I drank with, the people who shared with me. In the best of circumstances, the wine (or the film, perhaps) is only important with respect to how many of the old layers of me it helped to slough off. Here's to being shiny and new. As often as possible.
Wow, you just captured the major red flags of film criticism beautifully! I always wondered similar thoughts about the “Best Of” lists; Why this one? I always found it odd that people take an opinion and make it fact when it comes to film, placing such importance on percentages and star count. Each person in the world hasn’t seen the same films, meaning these lists never feel like they have the prestige so many people make it seem they have. Once again, incredible piece.
Same, I've always had such a weird unease with rankings!! I'm also like who am I to rank someone's else's...way of seeing life? It's such an odd thing. I like lists that are creative and use something better than worst to best scale but maybe that's just me. Thank you for your comment 💖
Love this take on how the “greatest film” is an ever-shifting concept, not a fixed truth. Jeanne Dielman’s top ranking isn’t a glitch—it’s proof that a film’s meaning evolves, just like us. I am no expert on anything, but a favourite film rests only with you. It can, and often does, change over time, like your favourite piece of art, book or music. This is part of the connection we feel with culture, well it is for me anyway, but hey, what do I know :)
I really love and agree with the last part of your reply to Harry's comment. When people lose their sh*t over one simple ranking, we do indeed have a problem. From that line to the end of your reply, I'm right there with you, cheering you on!
But, and I say this with kindness intended, don't let people like that bother you. If you get worked up by them, you are, in a way, making the same mistake.
I do think that better/worse/lower/higher *can* be productive at times. In your post you contrasted movies with baseball, pointing out that movies are not quantifiable in the same way. Yet as a big fan of both, I can assure you that the debate over subjective opinions vs. quantified opinions gets just as passionate among baseball fans.
I'm 63. Old enough that I've learned not to let much bother me, especially when it comes to entertainment. I'm very much a dual-brained guy who really enjoys statistics like imdb rating averages, but also loves the verbal discussions about art that you clearly cherish. And when people have different views about entertainment than I do, well instead of bothering me, it just entertains me more!
On a personal note, while I suppose you follow anyone who subscribes to you, it was still a pleasant surprise when you became my first follower. Thanks!
I'm currently working on setting up my publication transferring a couple of months of private texts (a successful test to see if I was up to this Substack endeavor) over here to Substack. But check in on me in about a week or so, and I think you will find my thoughts interesting and entertaining, as I do yours. 🙂
First, thank you for such a thoughtful and kind response. And yes, I absolutely try to follow and engage with everyone who subscribes - this community we're building means a lot to me. I'm looking forward to checking out your publication once it's up and running.
You make really interesting points about baseball statistics and quantified opinions. You're right that passionate debates about statistics happen in all fields - I mean, have you seen baseball fans argue about WAR versus traditional stats?
But here's where I think film differs crucially: When the Yankees win the World Series, that's an objective fact based on clearly defined rules and metrics. There are literally scores involved. It's math. Same thing with stock prices. By the end of the day, we'll objectively know who was 'up' and who was 'down'. But when Paul Schrader declares Oppenheimer the "most important film of the century," that's a subjective declaration masked as objective truth through the language of authority. The numbers and rankings aren't the problem - it's how we sometimes use them to shut down deeper engagement with (often marginalized) art rather than encourage it.
I appreciate your perspective on not letting these things bother me too much. But I worry that when we treat film rankings as neutral facts rather than what they are - fascinating snapshots of cultural values at specific moments in time - we risk perpetuating the very systems that have historically silenced certain voices and perspectives in cinema.
That said, I love that you brought up being "dual-brained" about this! There's definitely room for both quantitative and qualitative approaches to discussing film. IMDb ratings and "best of" lists can be fun entry points into deeper discussions. The key is remembering they're conversation starters, not conversation enders.
Thank you for engaging so thoughtfully with my piece. Looking forward to reading your work!
Ha! I love that you brought up WAR vs. traditional stats! The stat guy in me, and I was once a professional statistician working in manufacturing, has spent hours and hours analyzing how to improve the complicated beast that is WAR!
Well, I would respond by comparing the Yankees winning the World Series to a film winning the Academy Award for best picture, also an objective fact based on rules and metrics (votes). The debate still goes on as to whether the best team that year was the team that won, or whether the Oscar winner was really the best film that season. And you can certainly argue in both cases that there have been times when some unfairness has happened in the system such that the best team/film did not win.
I'm in complete agreement with you that such things as ratings should be conversation starters not enders.
Also putting this in the time capsule. There's a joke there about the fundamental transience of the human condition and how it interacts with art (i.e. film, i.e. this piece), and I would make it if I wasn't running out the door as I'm typing this.
Love that you caught the cosmic irony of preserving a piece about the impermanence of artistic meaning in a time capsule! That's exactly the kind of contradiction I live for. Though I suppose by the time anyone digs it up, the entire discourse around Jeanne Dielman will have evolved into interpretive dance or something equally unrecognizable.
Really appreciate you taking the time to read and comment, even if you were racing against time to do it. There's probably another metaphor there about criticism and temporality but I'll spare us both 🙈 Hope you made it okay to wherever you were heading!!
This is an excellent essay. My thoughts, though, are that Frankly, Jeanne Dielman is a film that misses so many opportunities to do truly great things artistically and really doesn't achieve as much as some films do in about half the time. It is pretentious beyond belief. The characterizations are weak... There are so many obviously better films.
I believe there are great films (Jeanne Dielmann is not among them), but I don't believe there is a 'greatest' film because every great film succeeds in a distinct way that can't fairly be compared to other great films. I think it would be somewhat akin to asking what the 'best animal' is.
But yes, Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, Letterboxd, and these other various lists have made the whole thing silly, often placing mediocre but highly popular/lowest common denominator films above real works of art. I'm glad at least there is respect for the likes of Ozu or Edward Yang etc.
Thank you so much, Dan! We're in total agreement. I'm not arguing that JD is the greatest film of all time, absolutely, for the reasons you mentioned - there isn't (and there shouldn't!) be an absolute definite ranking. I want to validate the people out there who may think that. Who am I to say no if you truly feel it in your heart? And who are they to say to you the opposite because you don't agree it's a great film? Absolutes, superlatives are just a poor way to engage with art. It's ok if this is how we make connections in our heads (after all this is all the brain knows what to do) but I'm inviting everyone to engage with film/art more emotionally - move beyond rankings. Because from what we've seen, lists and rankings sadly exist to gatekeep work (usually from underrepresented artists). I cannot in good conscience be okay with that. If we need to use a list, let's make it creative. Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment. Appreciate you❤️
You’re the best film critic I read.
Can't thank you enough for your support, Brendan ❤️❤️❤️
It's all egotism, isn't it?
Being mad that there's a ranking of great movies with which you disagree implies that in the end there is only ONE, CANONICAL "Greatest" list. Which means that you CAN know all the greatest movies, that ALL KNOWLEDGE is within your terrestrial grasp.
Which... C'mon fam. That's ridiculous.
We need to stop placing weight on "the greatest" and humbly concede that there is an ever-morphing canon from which we can always shape and change and more importantly challenge. Which involves dropping the ego and trying new things, usually from people not like us. I wish people like Paul Schrader realized this.
Fromtheyardtothearthouse.substack.com
Absolutely. I'm almost trying to be sympathetic to the idea that our silly brains comprehend lists/hierarchy so much better than just in-depth, nuanced vocabulary but that doesn't mean that I don't feel allergic to the idea of pushing back against this right brain-ed societal tendency. I find it fun and harmless when it's a list/guide for jokes but when elitists, gatekeepers or even director titans make claims like this, it doesn't really celebrate diverse work (even though he wanted to make that point and failed). Honestly, I just find it fascinating how bruised people feel after not seeing their all time fave at the top again and again. That irrational fear of feeling..invalidated? like relax
Certainly choosing a number from 1 to 10 is a weak exercise and the average of those ratings should not be the canon. Shawshank or the Godfather disappoint few people.
I do agree with Schrader that the Jeanne Dielmann triumph was probably orchestrated. The effort to reconstruct the canon, or “disrupt the white male hegemony”, as literary canon revisionists say, is a big problem for me as it carries a kind of bitterness. The women and minorities who vote for Chantal Akerman or Agnes Varda as the greatest filmmaker in history are attempting provocation and seeing politics in everything.
They want to tear down films made by white men that have become consensus classics( as decided by white men) but they cannot articulate even why those films are revered. If you asked them why “The Third Man” is so insightful regarding European history and paranoia and the vacuum of a state and the rule of law, they cannot think through that.
Personally, I love “Wanda”, the Barbara Loden film. Also “Portrait of a Lady on Fire” and Elaine Mays films. Those movies deserve to be toward the top of any list. But they are not better written than “Chinatown” or more imaginative than “Amadeus” or more philosophically stimulating than “Stalker.” And the people who say, as you do, that women directed films are better “for them” do not understand why other classic films are great. They have only learned how to topple consensus great films and lift up films that center women, minorities. They are cultural vandals, enjoying toppling great works because of their political motivation. They should focus on carving out a place for their fav films that center women, but stop trying to tear down the “Citizen Kanes” and “8 1/2s” just so they can get revenge on now dead film critics who made the canon.
Thank you so much for your comment, Harry and for sharing some incredible films in here. I agree. I think the issue is we're not using the right words. We're not having productive conversations about art when we use better/worse/lower/higher. This is not how art can be perceived - it's abstract, it's emotional, not mathematical. But this is how our brains work and this is what they want us to push towards: one more review, one more star, one more ranking. I think it's totally fair when people make up their own lists and have their personal faves (harmless imo) but when people lose their sh*t over one simple ranking that dares to challenge the usual suspects, we have a problem. Let art be art. Let undiscovered art be discovered. Let others have different taste. Let others have different 'rankings'. The world is not going to collapse.
Absolutely, the canon is kinda a trail guide which points out highlights- views which are commonly agreed on as beautiful. I wrote more about this. https://open.substack.com/pub/thawgracefully/p/the-canon?r=a7q1t&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
I am sure many genuinely prefer "Jeanne Dielman", but I think for others there are politics and a pleasure in burning down the previous consensus great films. Of course, the politics go the other way as well. Schrader saying "Oppenheimer" is one of the best films of the century is a perfect example of a very conservative guy loving a movie about a historically important white man made in a "significant", realist way. I thought Oppenheimer was a failure and don't like Nolan in general. And even Schrader, who wrote some great films like "Taxi Driver" is a completely unskilled, heavy handed director often.
Great work as always, Sophie.
The rigidity of film criticism (and conversely, adulation) really speaks to how boxed-in, often by design, these avenues have become. Which is ironic, in a way, isn't it?
Just as a baseline, film, music, any artistic endeavour - we should constantly be looking to them and most importantly, anything they present that is outside of our personal experience, in forever expanding our creative horizons. But comfortability has become the operating word for so many: understanding why (and respecting why) but then challenging those perceptions is so important.
I'll admit though, openly, that I subscribe to that thinking myself to some extent, in putting an out-of-ten rating on everything I watch and review, including on my work here, on Substack. And honestly, it is something I've done for so long, just out of a sense of personal habit ("well, this worked for me but this didn't, so there's 0.2 points shaved off", etc), I've never given too much thought to how limiting it can be - but you're absolutely right.
Something to think on, at the very least.
(Also, well done recommending Jeanne Dielman - I haven't watched it in years but have no doubt I would appreciate more now, with a sharper eye).
First, thank you for such a thoughtful response. Your point about comfort being the operating word really struck me – it's fascinating how we've developed these numerical scaffolds to help us process art, isn't it? I totally get it. There's something reassuring about being able to quantify our reactions, to feel like we can pin down exactly why something worked or didn't.
(Confession: I still have a spreadsheet somewhere with every final scene I watched during lockdown, complete with ratings down to decimal points. The hubris of boredom!)
But what I love about your comment is the openness to questioning these habits we've developed as critics. It's not about abolishing ratings or saying they're inherently bad – they can be useful shorthand, especially when we're trying to communicate quickly with readers. The trap is when they become containers that limit rather than tools that illuminate.
And speaking of illumination – yes to revisiting Jeanne Dielman! Really appreciate you engaging with this piece so openly. It's exactly these kinds of reflective conversations about how we process and discuss art that I was hoping to create ❤️
The hubris of boredom absolutely!
"Containers that limit rather than tools that illuminate", though - wonderfully said.
There really is some truth in finding a healthy balance, more so in this specific instance. Having faith in your own process without being closed off to growth. I suppose that's where I'm coming from, as I always try too.
As creatives, critics, there is always someone out there who can teach us, be it through their writing, their perspectives or a personal maturity in an area that outshines our own.
The day we stop learning, whatever the metric, is the day we limit ourselves to possibility. And we should never want that.
yeah this is great! I loved this article!
Thank you so much Fabrice 💗
Excellent essay! The tech-brain urge to turn everything into a number or ranking baffles me.
Same!!! Thank you so much Lora 💕
Can you please make this entire essay into a chapbook so I can pass it out to strangers on the street? This is what gets passed around at the start of a revolution. Sophie I have no words right now for how wonderful, necessary, and timely this is but as they come to me I'll be sure to send them your way.
Taylor you're making me so emotional, thank you for this 💕💕
Also I will give you money as soon as I have it! But until then please know how valuable I think your thoughts are.
I appreciate you 🥹💗 thank you for valuing original writing!!
Another wonderful piece, Sophie. This discussion reminds me of an old clip from American Bandstand in which one of the teenagers gives the song an 85 because "I can dance to it." This seems the most compelling way of "ranking" a film-going or wine-drinking or other emotional pursuit. How did this thing make me feel? How did it change the way I look at things? How have I grown after experiencing it?
In my business, wine-making, the same boring, meaningless faux-objective point score, end-of-year-best-of list building, is de riguer. Rarely is the context taken into account...the food I drank with, the people who shared with me. In the best of circumstances, the wine (or the film, perhaps) is only important with respect to how many of the old layers of me it helped to slough off. Here's to being shiny and new. As often as possible.
Love this comment, Steven!
This was great, but the correct answer is The Godfather.
Wow, you just captured the major red flags of film criticism beautifully! I always wondered similar thoughts about the “Best Of” lists; Why this one? I always found it odd that people take an opinion and make it fact when it comes to film, placing such importance on percentages and star count. Each person in the world hasn’t seen the same films, meaning these lists never feel like they have the prestige so many people make it seem they have. Once again, incredible piece.
Same, I've always had such a weird unease with rankings!! I'm also like who am I to rank someone's else's...way of seeing life? It's such an odd thing. I like lists that are creative and use something better than worst to best scale but maybe that's just me. Thank you for your comment 💖
Love this take on how the “greatest film” is an ever-shifting concept, not a fixed truth. Jeanne Dielman’s top ranking isn’t a glitch—it’s proof that a film’s meaning evolves, just like us. I am no expert on anything, but a favourite film rests only with you. It can, and often does, change over time, like your favourite piece of art, book or music. This is part of the connection we feel with culture, well it is for me anyway, but hey, what do I know :)
Hi Sophie,
I really love and agree with the last part of your reply to Harry's comment. When people lose their sh*t over one simple ranking, we do indeed have a problem. From that line to the end of your reply, I'm right there with you, cheering you on!
But, and I say this with kindness intended, don't let people like that bother you. If you get worked up by them, you are, in a way, making the same mistake.
I do think that better/worse/lower/higher *can* be productive at times. In your post you contrasted movies with baseball, pointing out that movies are not quantifiable in the same way. Yet as a big fan of both, I can assure you that the debate over subjective opinions vs. quantified opinions gets just as passionate among baseball fans.
I'm 63. Old enough that I've learned not to let much bother me, especially when it comes to entertainment. I'm very much a dual-brained guy who really enjoys statistics like imdb rating averages, but also loves the verbal discussions about art that you clearly cherish. And when people have different views about entertainment than I do, well instead of bothering me, it just entertains me more!
On a personal note, while I suppose you follow anyone who subscribes to you, it was still a pleasant surprise when you became my first follower. Thanks!
I'm currently working on setting up my publication transferring a couple of months of private texts (a successful test to see if I was up to this Substack endeavor) over here to Substack. But check in on me in about a week or so, and I think you will find my thoughts interesting and entertaining, as I do yours. 🙂
Hi Rick!
First, thank you for such a thoughtful and kind response. And yes, I absolutely try to follow and engage with everyone who subscribes - this community we're building means a lot to me. I'm looking forward to checking out your publication once it's up and running.
You make really interesting points about baseball statistics and quantified opinions. You're right that passionate debates about statistics happen in all fields - I mean, have you seen baseball fans argue about WAR versus traditional stats?
But here's where I think film differs crucially: When the Yankees win the World Series, that's an objective fact based on clearly defined rules and metrics. There are literally scores involved. It's math. Same thing with stock prices. By the end of the day, we'll objectively know who was 'up' and who was 'down'. But when Paul Schrader declares Oppenheimer the "most important film of the century," that's a subjective declaration masked as objective truth through the language of authority. The numbers and rankings aren't the problem - it's how we sometimes use them to shut down deeper engagement with (often marginalized) art rather than encourage it.
I appreciate your perspective on not letting these things bother me too much. But I worry that when we treat film rankings as neutral facts rather than what they are - fascinating snapshots of cultural values at specific moments in time - we risk perpetuating the very systems that have historically silenced certain voices and perspectives in cinema.
That said, I love that you brought up being "dual-brained" about this! There's definitely room for both quantitative and qualitative approaches to discussing film. IMDb ratings and "best of" lists can be fun entry points into deeper discussions. The key is remembering they're conversation starters, not conversation enders.
Thank you for engaging so thoughtfully with my piece. Looking forward to reading your work!
Ha! I love that you brought up WAR vs. traditional stats! The stat guy in me, and I was once a professional statistician working in manufacturing, has spent hours and hours analyzing how to improve the complicated beast that is WAR!
Well, I would respond by comparing the Yankees winning the World Series to a film winning the Academy Award for best picture, also an objective fact based on rules and metrics (votes). The debate still goes on as to whether the best team that year was the team that won, or whether the Oscar winner was really the best film that season. And you can certainly argue in both cases that there have been times when some unfairness has happened in the system such that the best team/film did not win.
I'm in complete agreement with you that such things as ratings should be conversation starters not enders.
Thanks for this conversation!
Also putting this in the time capsule. There's a joke there about the fundamental transience of the human condition and how it interacts with art (i.e. film, i.e. this piece), and I would make it if I wasn't running out the door as I'm typing this.
A necessary essay. Thank you 🙏
Love that you caught the cosmic irony of preserving a piece about the impermanence of artistic meaning in a time capsule! That's exactly the kind of contradiction I live for. Though I suppose by the time anyone digs it up, the entire discourse around Jeanne Dielman will have evolved into interpretive dance or something equally unrecognizable.
Really appreciate you taking the time to read and comment, even if you were racing against time to do it. There's probably another metaphor there about criticism and temporality but I'll spare us both 🙈 Hope you made it okay to wherever you were heading!!
Beautifully said, Jon ❤️
This is an excellent essay. My thoughts, though, are that Frankly, Jeanne Dielman is a film that misses so many opportunities to do truly great things artistically and really doesn't achieve as much as some films do in about half the time. It is pretentious beyond belief. The characterizations are weak... There are so many obviously better films.
I believe there are great films (Jeanne Dielmann is not among them), but I don't believe there is a 'greatest' film because every great film succeeds in a distinct way that can't fairly be compared to other great films. I think it would be somewhat akin to asking what the 'best animal' is.
But yes, Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, Letterboxd, and these other various lists have made the whole thing silly, often placing mediocre but highly popular/lowest common denominator films above real works of art. I'm glad at least there is respect for the likes of Ozu or Edward Yang etc.
Thank you so much, Dan! We're in total agreement. I'm not arguing that JD is the greatest film of all time, absolutely, for the reasons you mentioned - there isn't (and there shouldn't!) be an absolute definite ranking. I want to validate the people out there who may think that. Who am I to say no if you truly feel it in your heart? And who are they to say to you the opposite because you don't agree it's a great film? Absolutes, superlatives are just a poor way to engage with art. It's ok if this is how we make connections in our heads (after all this is all the brain knows what to do) but I'm inviting everyone to engage with film/art more emotionally - move beyond rankings. Because from what we've seen, lists and rankings sadly exist to gatekeep work (usually from underrepresented artists). I cannot in good conscience be okay with that. If we need to use a list, let's make it creative. Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment. Appreciate you❤️
"...where The Shawshank Redemption has reigned supreme for so long you'd think Andy Dufresne tunneled his way straight into the algorithm...'
Haha most excellent line made me laugh.
I went through a phase recently of listening to the OST especially of that tunnel escape scene. Powerful track.
Anyway I've honed in on an unrelated detail of your article :D
LOVE this comment. And for the record, I love the film and the OST 😂
Yeah me too. I thought you were going to hate on it. I was like nooo Andy needs to get to Zihuatanejo.