at least hundreds of us...
tho i do know people who'd recognize the chantal akerman/michael mann joke but not recognize julia louise-dreyfus, jerry seinfield or jason alexander...
I watched the old 100 list during the pandemic. Was Jeanne Dielman my favourite,no, but it definately was the one I thought and talked about the most after
My interpretation is that it isn't about the payoff. If the viewer feels the viewing experience for 3 hours is grueling, then they should also be actively thinking about how much more grueling it is in real life, where "tradition" has normalized women into that role for the majority of many of their lives. If you think the movie is about the ending, then you most likely disregard the last point because something like "obviously traditional gender roles like housewife are bad", but this is showing ignorance both for the time period it was made in, and in how it's still very normalized today.
> then they should also be actively thinking about how much more grueling it is in real life
Movies can convey many emotions and feelings without needing to do it in real time. What you're describing is more of a museum piece like Empire.
> where "tradition" has normalized women into that role for the majority of many of their lives
Legit question - being a prostitute or doing chores?
Because you could make this movie about any person, regardless of gender, in any lifestyle that they find monotonous. There could be a *Bob Smith 22 Rocky Way Tuscon AZ* and have 3 hours of him filing medical forms until he stabs his boss.
Or you could watch better filmmakers convey that with actual narrative structure and more to say, and watch *American Splendor.*
I've seen it twice and will likely watch it again many more times in the years ahead. It's a boring film but it's boring by design. There's a texture and a craft to it that makes it oddly compelling even when it feels like nothing is happening. Delphine Seyrig is genuinely incredible in it considering how little she has to work with.
It's a film about Jeanne's subjugation and slowly getting acquainted with her daily life and the few pleasures she has is important for when we get to the final act and things start to unravel.
But it's not just boring, that's the thing. People keep talking about this film like it's just her doing chores and then there's a payoff at the end. They're completely missing the subtle unraveling that occurs throughout each set piece. That's why it's so crucial to watch it in one go and pay attention to all the little deals—it's all very intentional! There are actually things happening all the time, they're just subtle. Even people who like the movie seem to miss all that. I usually don't mention it because I feel like it spoils it to just tell people, but shit, so tired of seeing so many people miss that.
13 years and 600k karma later you're still surprised people downvote things they don't agree with. criterion is just like gaming 🙄
pick-up posts and memes, once a week there's a thread with some discussion on it (this one, i guess)—there is nothing *high brow* about r/criterion, anyway.
It's worth sitting through the 3.5h movie, so you can pretend you are better than everyone else who hasn't watched it.
Bonus point if you explain the movie to normies to try to impressive them with the fact that you watch a movie that very few people care about.
Because some people are interested in what people may consider the best, and if critics around the world vote that this movie is considered the best, that is going to draw discussion about why that is or is not true.
Because it is boring. That's the point. You can scoff at people appreciating that all you want but it's literally by design. If you didn't get it and it's not for you, that's fine.
Clear gender divide.
Heat is about men suffering under the pressures of their vocation.
Jeanne Dielman about the pressures of having a "vocation" forced upon you by society.
Great double feature.
If you mean in reference to Jeanne Dielman, then I agree. That's why I put vocation in scare quotes. I didn't know how to highlight the inauthenticity of the forced vocation without lots of words that would ruin my attempt at pithiness.
Look, Jeanne Dielman is genuinely one of my favourite films. i have watched it multiple times. Tastes differ. I believe critics / filmmakers might have included more films directed by women as a correction to decades of largely putting female directors aside. It is a complicated matter. But did it deserve to get recognised? in my opinion, yes. Did I expect such a film to top the sight and sound poll? No. There are elements here at play other than just the quality of the said film. But are there ever not? Aren’t all lists shaped by tastes and biases and socialization and trends? No person lives in a vacuum. All that said, yeah of course tastes differ and I understand that some people might not recognise it as a masterpiece or even a good film. It is fine to not like it!
Yeah, every list is a product of its environment. That's sort of the point of doing one a decade, to see how tastes change and evolve over time within a shifting landscape. I don't think it's controversial to say that critics made a concerted effort to recognize more films by and about women in 2022. I don't think that's a bad thing and I don't think it detracts from Jeanne Dielman's position at the top of the list. I'm interested to see how things change again in 2032.
I watched it for the first time this week and loved it. Some of that might be based on expectations. Meaning, everyone I heard talk about it said how boring it was but worth it. 3+ hours and I never found it boring.
Dielman has always been my favorite movie, or at least in the top five, for many reasons. Most of Ackerman’s work is generally under acknowledged. That said, superlative lists are rather silly and I was surprised to see it on such a list. I suppose it’s a kind of anti-godfather which usually hangs out at the top of such lists. Either way, it’s a brilliant film that influenced many filmmakers. Prior to this, long shots and slow time in cinema often were used to highlight excessive beauty in shots(Tarkovsky, Antonioni, etc), not as a meditation on the banality of domesticity. While also a dark commentary, it’s pretty funny when mistakes made while washing dishes hit the viewer as disturbing, and there was audible gasps/ laughter when I saw it in the theater. This humor is present in much of her work, particularly “blow up my town” or “I, you, he, she.” I believe much of Jim Jarmusch’s aesthetic comes from her. Who watched what I can only guess, but she was definitely a pioneer in the kind of great slow cinema we see today (Lucrecia Martel, Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Cristi Puiu, etc..).
Eh come on.. that newer slow cinema is much more influenced by Tarkovsky. Also don’t you feel Jeanne Dielman, as great as it is, is kind of an experimental gimmick? How could one possibly see it as the greatest film of all time above Mirror, Persona, or 2001 or Dog Star Man??
I think something like Andy Warhol's *Empire* or Michael Snow's *Wavelength* would better qualify as "experimental gimmick" films. Jeanne Dielman is slow and experimental but I wouldn't dismiss what it does as purely being a gimmick. The film wouldn't work if it was 90 minutes long.
Whether or not it's the greatest film of all time is entirely subjective but there's no denying its influence or importance.
> The film wouldn't work if it was 90 minutes long
Sure it would, most people don't need to sit through literal real-time boredom to understand boredom.
At that point, why watch films at all? Why consume any media at all? We already experience feelings in real life so why do we need to experience them through art too?
> At that point, why watch films at all?
Strange hyperbole there. At what point? Not requiring literal real-time experience shown on screen for movies? It's only *that*, or *nothing*? You find no middle ground? Can't enjoy 99.99999% of all movies?
It has to be the laziest expression of film ever to imply that any experience must be displayed in a replication of its non-diegetic time expenditure.
I was being slightly facetious, but, for example, the time you spend with Jeanne meticulously preparing dinner is crucial because you then see her plate it up and put on the table for her son, who doesn't even say thank you. You feel the injustice and sympathise with her stoic acceptance of the fact she's barely more than a slave.
There's a power to the film and its central character which is only made possible by its slow form.
Again, I would argue that saying a particular film is the “greatest” is pretty stupid, viewing the wonderfully varied world of film purely through such a hierarchy is not giving it justice ( not that there aren’t good and bad films). In some ways, Dielman is the film equivalent of Robbe-Grillet’s Jealousy, where he uses the counting of banana trees to convey the homicidal mania of its narrator. Ackerman’s focused, darkly comic investigation of feminine domesticity hardly seems gimmicky to me. She invited viewers into a perspective that was new at the time, both thematically and technically. I would argue that slowness in Tarkovsky is an entirely different kind of thing, and largely aesthetic as opposed to conceptual ( not that I don’t love it). His long tracking shots of aquatic vegetation undulating with the flow of water comprises a moment of eloquence and beauty. With Akerman she’s expressing the Sisyphus like toils of the domestic house wife to the point of absurdity. Tarkovsky’ lineage can be found in the exquisite films of Bela Tarr. But the toil of the everyday, the pointed humor of life’s routines, these are elements you see in Martel’s folly of the Bourgeois, or Jarmusch’s floundering lowlife criminals and gamblers.
Maybe. I watched it once and all I got out of it was the messing with physical film and colorful stimulation. Then again I actually do recall liking it more than Jeanne Dielman
my medium warm take is increasingly people feel they simply can’t submit a best of list with all male directors. because Jeanne Dielman is one of a short list of critically established female directed films, it ended up on the most lists and thus made it to number one, even if there are precious few people who think it’s actually the best film ever
She was insufferable screaming gibberish over Chuck Barry and John Lennon's duet on stage. She also forced Julian to buy letters from his father at auction because she refused to give them to him.
Right on cue. Your hero John Lennon was a saint in his personal life who chose to be with Yoko and create music with her 40+ years ago, but you still mad about Chuck "Barry".
Jesus, am I not allowed to say how I feel? I don't think she needs to be crucified, but this recent deification of Yoko makes me roll my eyes. I think there's some merit to the performance art aspect but she also comes off as a trash person just like John, just with less talent.
Cool that you have the same feelings that have been expressed for 6 decades now. Just seems odd to chime in about not bashing Yoko by bashing Yoko again. Who has time like that to spend on things they're not interested in? I certainly don't.
I was just scrolling the comments and saw yours. I didn't seek your comment out. You sound a little narcissistic honestly. Like I came looking to shit on your parade. If someone says something that feels dishonest, sometimes I can't keep the thought to myself. Yoko wasn't the Devil, but she also wasn't the second coming.
Is that honestly how you view any conflicting or alternative view? Anyone who doesn't see it your way is arguing? I don't get how a person can be so combative and spend time on a place that encourages sharing opinions/ideas, etc. Whatever.
It’s hard matching the joke to the picture. There was an episode where Elaine made fun of artsy movies and just wanted to watch a cheap comedy. I think it was called “Sack Lunch” Seinfeld isn’t helping this joke.
I was in the same "I can't imagine myself ever watching this again" boat after the first viewing but I did end up watching it again and got so much more out of it the second time round. It's phenomenal.
>3 hours of day to day life for one shocker at the end is pretty ballsy
This shows that you missed what was happening during those 3 hours. Why do so may people think that's all that it is?
Never even heard of Jeanne Dielman until that list came out, then I watched it (in sessions).
I just thought to myself self “really? This is what these people consider the best movie of all time?”
I watched it recently in one sitting, but wanted to before the last release of the poll, I just couldn't until recently due to the lack of availability, but saw it was on BFI Player.
This at number one is going to put a lot of people off looking further into the list at much better movies, in my opinion.
I'm not against long films (seen Napoleon and other movies of a similar length to Jeanne) and I like slow cinema (Stalker is in my top 10 and I'm currently tackling Out 1) but it just wasn't that good to me.
My wife had the same reaction as you as well.
I’m not against long movies either, A Brighter Summer Day is one of my all time favorites. Jeanne Dielman is just not a very good movie, I understand its importance, but definitely not for me.
Yeah, I hate to be snobbish about these things, since people have stuff to do. If you wanna break Seven Samurai or The Irishman over a couple of days, that's fine with me. However, in the case of Jeanne Dielmann, you absolutely have to watch it all in one sitting. Feeling the boredom is the point.
No movie should be broken up over days. That’s not how it’s meant to be seen. Taking like a 10 minute break during a 3 hour movie sure but coming back and seeing it the next day is gross
Oops, guess I'm gross then.
Look, people are busy. Or maybe you start a movie and get really tired halfway through. It's really not that big a deal to pause it and finish it the next day. Sure, it's not how the filmmaker "intended" it to be seen, but if you're watching it at home, you're already probably not watching it in the way the filmmaker intended.
This subreddit in particular attracts some pretty nasty film snob/wannabe critic personalities. Gatekeeping how people are allowed to enjoy movies is wild to me.
This whole attitude of “don’t disagree with people, that’s rude and snobbish and gatekeeping” is really weird. So if someone says “I watched Jeanne Dielman on my phone and it was boring and it sucks” everyone is supposed to just be like “I respect your opinion”? Is David Lynch a gatekeeper because he talked about how shameful it is to watch movies on a phone or laptop with bad sound? Obviously people are allowed to do whatever they want but people can also point out that they experienced something in a suboptimal way and therefore their criticism carries less weight. If someone says they don’t think Richebourg is a great wine because it tastes weird mixed with sprite is everyone supposed to say that’s valid? It’s gatekeeping to say well you’re a fucking idiot for adding sprite to a $5,000 bottle of wine? Somebody saying they watched Jeanne Dielman in sessions and then shitting on it and people who gave it its due attention and recognize it’s brilliance is ridiculous and it’s totally valid to say you’re watching movies wrong.
This response actually proved my point so well I don’t think I even need to defend it.
Edit: I guess I do have to defend it so here goes.
>So if someone says “I watched Jeanne Dielman on my phone and it was boring and it sucks” everyone is supposed to just be like “I respect your opinion”?
No, but you don't have to respect an opinion for it to be valid.
>Is David Lynch a gatekeeper because he talked about how shameful it is to watch movies on a phone or laptop with bad sound?
Depends on the context. If he's lamenting that people who do this are ignorant of how superior the cinema experience is, then no, that's not gatekeeping. If he's saying they specifically deserve to be shamed for watching the way they enjoy, then yes.
>Obviously people are allowed to do whatever they want but people can also point out that they experienced something in a suboptimal way and therefore their criticism carries less weight.
I agree completely. A critique carrying less weight is not the same as being invalidated.
> If someone says they don’t think Richebourg is a great wine because it tastes weird mixed with sprite is everyone supposed to say that’s valid?
Yes, but if I would probably not engage in that discussion beyond telling them that most people drink the wine by itself and that their opinion would likely change if they did so. I wouldn't tell them they're wrong for enjoying it how they want.
> It’s gatekeeping to say well you’re a fucking idiot for adding sprite to a $5,000 bottle of wine?
Nope, not gatekeeping. You are entitled to your opinions just as they are entitled to theirs. This is just a more aggressive way of saying what I said above.
>Somebody saying they watched Jeanne Dielman in sessions and then shitting on it and people who gave it its due attention and recognize it’s brilliance is ridiculous and it’s totally valid to say you’re watching movies wrong.
Again, they're not watching movies wrong. They're just getting a different experience. It's subtle but saying "your opinion is invalid" versus "you will have a totally different experience watching this all at once as the filmmaker intended" is the difference between gatekeeping and being supportive.
They're right though. Its similar to people watching horror movies in the middle of the day and then complaining about it not being scary. Its not snobbish lol but I smell projection
Opinions and criticisms are just opinions and criticisms. In your example, the opinion is not outright invalidated like that other dude claims just because you watched a horror movie during the day and felt like it wasn’t scary. It’s just an opinion that you, as someone who will be watching in the dark, can choose to consider or not consider. If I’m only going to watch horror movies in the dark, I’m not going to take that particular criticism into consideration when deciding whether to watch the movie/develop my own opinion after that fact.
A non-gatekeeping/snobbish way to address this situation would be “I would recommend re-watching it in the dark (or uninterrupted) to really understand the point the filmmaker was trying to make.” Compare that to “You watched in sessions so your opinion is invalidated” or “The way you watch movies is wrong.”
Disagreeing and gatekeeping aren’t the same things. Telling someone their opinion of art or how to consume it is *wrong* can definitely be gatekeeping.
I always reason that it's way better to enjoy the rest of the film tomorrow than trudge through it half asleep. Neither is ideal -- will always vastly prefer finishing it all in one sitting and it's a shame when I can't, but sometimes you just get sleepy
If you’re rewatching something then sure I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. But stopping a movie and coming back the next day is just weird. How are you supposed to fully experience the emotions of the film if you don’t watch it all in one sitting? Just doesn’t feel like the right way to watch something.
And nobody is that busy lol. Saying you’re too busy to watch carve out 4 hours to see a movie is crazy. If you’ve got a small child then I guess I can see it but generally speaking nobody is that busy
I'm capable of remembering my experience and emotions up to the point that I paused the movie. People generally don't read novels in one sitting and they're also usually capable of experiencing the emotional turns of the story just fine.
I have a busy life. I have a young child. I used to agree with you and watched like a couple of movies a month at most. Then I thought "fuck it" and I started watching movies in sessions. I watch many more movies now and I'm very happy with it. I have seen such incredible masterpieces in 2023 that I would've missed otherwise.
I agree with you that it's preferable. But I don't see an unovercomeable problem.
Some people don’t need or want to appreciate one piece of art for 4 hours in a single day. Why do you think that is objectively more desirable than otherwise not doing that?
If they don’t want to sure, whatever but not being able to because you “can’t fit it into your schedule” just seems like a poor excuse. If your life is so busy you can’t set aside an afternoon to do something you love than you need to recalibrate how you’re spending your time. If you truly love film or art or whatever but can’t make the time then maybe you don’t actually love those things that much
I'm not saying it's the best way to watch a movie (although, with certain movies with intermissions, it can actually work quite well), but neither is pushing through with a movie if you're tired. I would much rather take a break and watch the rest of the movie with my full attention later.
And yeah, lots of people *are* that busy. Not breaking up certain ultra-long movies means that some people would likely never watch them at all.
Obviously, and I always insist people watch it in one go. But what even many people who like and defend the film seem to miss is the subtle unraveling that occurs over the course of the film. It's all very intentional, but you have to pay attention to the details to notice that. So many people think it's just this lady doing boring, monotonous chores and then a big, unexpected payoff at the end, and that's not doing it justice—it's like treating it like it's just some extended jump-scare.
I hate even describing it because I feel like it spoils the film to point it out beforehand, but again, I see it over and over on this sub even from the film's defenders.
It just goes to show you that the only opinion that should really matter to you is your own. Having said that, I agree. It is not better than most of the movies on that list or many of the movies that didn’t make the list at all.
I love Jeanne Dielman but with a full year to digest, it’s fucking absurd that it became number 1. A much needed rectifying moment in the history of art but hopefully the pendulum swings back to somewhere more reasonable. Also Ackerman has made better films.
It's on youtube. Heat is one of my favorite films and I still can't get all the way through Takedown. But it's really funny to see lesser actors butchering the scenes I know so well.
Love Thief! I consider it a Heat prototype as well.
LA Takedown is a 1989 low budget tv movie based on an early draft of Heat. It’s 90% similar with a lot of the exact same dialogue and scenes.
Honestly, not even caring about what’s number one, like are you gonna tell me there’s 100 movies better than Star Wars or Jurassic Park? Balderdash.
My biggest problem with the list is how few ‘fun’ movies there are, and how all of them are from the 1960s and earlier.
Like Singin in the Rain and the Apartment get grandfathered in, but god forbid we admit a fun movie from the last 50 years is actually great.
Nothing against those two examples as I think they’re both great. It’s just there’s a clear bias.
It’s more that there is a stronger consensus on what the best highbrow movies are, but everyone’s favourite ‘fun’ movie is more personal and prone to vary. If you look at the individual ballots most people have a fun one.
Are you looking at the full 250+ list, or just the top 100? Star Wars is there at #225, Alien is #146, Raiders of the Lost Ark is #211, My Neighbor Totoro is #72, The Matrix is #122, Spirited Away is #75, and Mad Max: Fury Road is #196.
Also, they may not be "happy" fun, but I still consider movies like The Shining, Get Out, and Parasite fun, and they're all in the top 100.
I get what you're saying, especially since I've thought myself that a disproportionately large amount of the movies on the list seem to have a more depressing tone (tho I'm far from completing my watch-through of it). But, they haven't completely ignored newer fun stuff.
You know, I'm usually a defender of less "fun movies" in favor of high art, but this is a great point. When a movie is made before 1960 or so we don't treat it as "lowbrow" or "fun" even when that's what it is, save for lowest of the low cheap B movies.
Problem is people like you with poor comprehension not understanding what they're interpreting. Would a significant portion of the voters include star wars / Jurassic park or more 'fun' movies (bullshit term) in a top 100? Absolutely. But would you include them in your top 10? Because thats what this is, a collation of top 10 lists which is why it heavily leans into the artistic side. As much as I love Jurassic Park and Star Wars they aren't making my top 10 list. Something like Midnight Run will though.
so much jeanne dielman hate in this thread, but also several people saying they couldn't watch it in one session and people saying it's only praised because it's by a woman? hard to know how seriously to take these comments
jeanne dielman is great in part because it's so emotionally impactful for such a formalistically experimental and "slow" film that spends something like 4/5 of its runtime on mundane events, and it's one of those things that just doesn't can't hit you in the gut if you're watching it in 20 minute bites because you need to settle into the tempo of the film.
What’s the deal with Waingro? His name isn’t Wayne, and he doesn’t grow!
He had to get it on.
He was the Devil.
TV man said someone started mouthing off.
4 people? There are dozens of us!
One of us! One of us! 🍽
at least hundreds of us... tho i do know people who'd recognize the chantal akerman/michael mann joke but not recognize julia louise-dreyfus, jerry seinfield or jason alexander...
It’s no Death Blow, but it is a cut above Rochelle, Rochelle
Doesn't put a candle to Sack Lunch
I just wanna see Sack Lunch!
D E A T H B L O W
When someone tries to blow you up, not because of who you are, but for different reasons altogether
I'm just here to see Chunnel
Unwatchable dull until they get to Minsk. Better off with Prognosis Negative.
https://preview.redd.it/q9svirohovdc1.jpeg?width=900&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=195f7873488f383a5009a082ebb8eb9a4efa5d6b
Ah yes, one young girl's strange, erotic journey from Milan to Minsk.
Did Paul Schrader make this!?
cLDDDDDDDDDDDCC
😅🤣
Those 4 people are: Citizen Kane, The Godfather, The Third Man and Paul Schrader
The binge watch is the juice
I watched the old 100 list during the pandemic. Was Jeanne Dielman my favourite,no, but it definately was the one I thought and talked about the most after
[удалено]
My interpretation is that it isn't about the payoff. If the viewer feels the viewing experience for 3 hours is grueling, then they should also be actively thinking about how much more grueling it is in real life, where "tradition" has normalized women into that role for the majority of many of their lives. If you think the movie is about the ending, then you most likely disregard the last point because something like "obviously traditional gender roles like housewife are bad", but this is showing ignorance both for the time period it was made in, and in how it's still very normalized today.
Love the entire film, but will also say, seeing that in a packed theater on 35mm… the payoff absolutely shocked me. It’s startlingly perfect
> then they should also be actively thinking about how much more grueling it is in real life Movies can convey many emotions and feelings without needing to do it in real time. What you're describing is more of a museum piece like Empire. > where "tradition" has normalized women into that role for the majority of many of their lives Legit question - being a prostitute or doing chores? Because you could make this movie about any person, regardless of gender, in any lifestyle that they find monotonous. There could be a *Bob Smith 22 Rocky Way Tuscon AZ* and have 3 hours of him filing medical forms until he stabs his boss. Or you could watch better filmmakers convey that with actual narrative structure and more to say, and watch *American Splendor.*
I think it was less boring and more subtle.
Even its defenders seem to miss this. There's actually stuff happening the whole way!
I've seen it twice and will likely watch it again many more times in the years ahead. It's a boring film but it's boring by design. There's a texture and a craft to it that makes it oddly compelling even when it feels like nothing is happening. Delphine Seyrig is genuinely incredible in it considering how little she has to work with. It's a film about Jeanne's subjugation and slowly getting acquainted with her daily life and the few pleasures she has is important for when we get to the final act and things start to unravel.
But it's not just boring, that's the thing. People keep talking about this film like it's just her doing chores and then there's a payoff at the end. They're completely missing the subtle unraveling that occurs throughout each set piece. That's why it's so crucial to watch it in one go and pay attention to all the little deals—it's all very intentional! There are actually things happening all the time, they're just subtle. Even people who like the movie seem to miss all that. I usually don't mention it because I feel like it spoils it to just tell people, but shit, so tired of seeing so many people miss that.
You're at -56. It's kind of interesting to see the high brow subs act just as petty about varied opinions as /r/gaming
13 years and 600k karma later you're still surprised people downvote things they don't agree with. criterion is just like gaming 🙄 pick-up posts and memes, once a week there's a thread with some discussion on it (this one, i guess)—there is nothing *high brow* about r/criterion, anyway.
It's worth sitting through the 3.5h movie, so you can pretend you are better than everyone else who hasn't watched it. Bonus point if you explain the movie to normies to try to impressive them with the fact that you watch a movie that very few people care about.
Why do you care so much about the films other people enjoy watching?
Because some people are interested in what people may consider the best, and if critics around the world vote that this movie is considered the best, that is going to draw discussion about why that is or is not true.
Sure, but there is no need to make judgemental and insulting comments about people who enjoy the film.
[удалено]
I'm talking more about Fangore.
very weird opinion to post in the criterion sub, considering how criterion basically specializes in attending to less familiar movies haha
[удалено]
I loved it and yes stretches are boring I do think the pay off is well worth it, and once I understood what it was doing it was so fulfilling
Over Heat though?!! /s (kinda)
What’s wrong with boring?
*But it's a terrible experience on purpose!*
Get off that dopamine brother, it ain’t good in the long run
Because it is boring. That's the point. You can scoff at people appreciating that all you want but it's literally by design. If you didn't get it and it's not for you, that's fine.
It’s ok, I won’t try to “impressive” you then, you illiterate troll
Clear gender divide. Heat is about men suffering under the pressures of their vocation. Jeanne Dielman about the pressures of having a "vocation" forced upon you by society. Great double feature.
What kind of weirdo watches two 3 hour films back to back
me.
Or you could just watch Brighter Summer Day and Office Space back to back 😎
Most people don't find Lord of the Rings or Godfather marathons weird. And those are even longer, added up.
Not sure you could call it a “ vocation” but I get your point.
If you mean in reference to Jeanne Dielman, then I agree. That's why I put vocation in scare quotes. I didn't know how to highlight the inauthenticity of the forced vocation without lots of words that would ruin my attempt at pithiness.
Look, Jeanne Dielman is genuinely one of my favourite films. i have watched it multiple times. Tastes differ. I believe critics / filmmakers might have included more films directed by women as a correction to decades of largely putting female directors aside. It is a complicated matter. But did it deserve to get recognised? in my opinion, yes. Did I expect such a film to top the sight and sound poll? No. There are elements here at play other than just the quality of the said film. But are there ever not? Aren’t all lists shaped by tastes and biases and socialization and trends? No person lives in a vacuum. All that said, yeah of course tastes differ and I understand that some people might not recognise it as a masterpiece or even a good film. It is fine to not like it!
Yeah, every list is a product of its environment. That's sort of the point of doing one a decade, to see how tastes change and evolve over time within a shifting landscape. I don't think it's controversial to say that critics made a concerted effort to recognize more films by and about women in 2022. I don't think that's a bad thing and I don't think it detracts from Jeanne Dielman's position at the top of the list. I'm interested to see how things change again in 2032.
Exactly!
I watched it for the first time this week and loved it. Some of that might be based on expectations. Meaning, everyone I heard talk about it said how boring it was but worth it. 3+ hours and I never found it boring.
It’s hot garbage
I rate Heat 3 times what I rate Jeanne Dielman.
Obviously it's not better than Heat (duh!), but it is better than Frozen.
Dielman has always been my favorite movie, or at least in the top five, for many reasons. Most of Ackerman’s work is generally under acknowledged. That said, superlative lists are rather silly and I was surprised to see it on such a list. I suppose it’s a kind of anti-godfather which usually hangs out at the top of such lists. Either way, it’s a brilliant film that influenced many filmmakers. Prior to this, long shots and slow time in cinema often were used to highlight excessive beauty in shots(Tarkovsky, Antonioni, etc), not as a meditation on the banality of domesticity. While also a dark commentary, it’s pretty funny when mistakes made while washing dishes hit the viewer as disturbing, and there was audible gasps/ laughter when I saw it in the theater. This humor is present in much of her work, particularly “blow up my town” or “I, you, he, she.” I believe much of Jim Jarmusch’s aesthetic comes from her. Who watched what I can only guess, but she was definitely a pioneer in the kind of great slow cinema we see today (Lucrecia Martel, Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Cristi Puiu, etc..).
Eh come on.. that newer slow cinema is much more influenced by Tarkovsky. Also don’t you feel Jeanne Dielman, as great as it is, is kind of an experimental gimmick? How could one possibly see it as the greatest film of all time above Mirror, Persona, or 2001 or Dog Star Man??
I think something like Andy Warhol's *Empire* or Michael Snow's *Wavelength* would better qualify as "experimental gimmick" films. Jeanne Dielman is slow and experimental but I wouldn't dismiss what it does as purely being a gimmick. The film wouldn't work if it was 90 minutes long. Whether or not it's the greatest film of all time is entirely subjective but there's no denying its influence or importance.
> The film wouldn't work if it was 90 minutes long Sure it would, most people don't need to sit through literal real-time boredom to understand boredom.
At that point, why watch films at all? Why consume any media at all? We already experience feelings in real life so why do we need to experience them through art too?
> At that point, why watch films at all? Strange hyperbole there. At what point? Not requiring literal real-time experience shown on screen for movies? It's only *that*, or *nothing*? You find no middle ground? Can't enjoy 99.99999% of all movies? It has to be the laziest expression of film ever to imply that any experience must be displayed in a replication of its non-diegetic time expenditure.
I was being slightly facetious, but, for example, the time you spend with Jeanne meticulously preparing dinner is crucial because you then see her plate it up and put on the table for her son, who doesn't even say thank you. You feel the injustice and sympathise with her stoic acceptance of the fact she's barely more than a slave. There's a power to the film and its central character which is only made possible by its slow form.
Again, I would argue that saying a particular film is the “greatest” is pretty stupid, viewing the wonderfully varied world of film purely through such a hierarchy is not giving it justice ( not that there aren’t good and bad films). In some ways, Dielman is the film equivalent of Robbe-Grillet’s Jealousy, where he uses the counting of banana trees to convey the homicidal mania of its narrator. Ackerman’s focused, darkly comic investigation of feminine domesticity hardly seems gimmicky to me. She invited viewers into a perspective that was new at the time, both thematically and technically. I would argue that slowness in Tarkovsky is an entirely different kind of thing, and largely aesthetic as opposed to conceptual ( not that I don’t love it). His long tracking shots of aquatic vegetation undulating with the flow of water comprises a moment of eloquence and beauty. With Akerman she’s expressing the Sisyphus like toils of the domestic house wife to the point of absurdity. Tarkovsky’ lineage can be found in the exquisite films of Bela Tarr. But the toil of the everyday, the pointed humor of life’s routines, these are elements you see in Martel’s folly of the Bourgeois, or Jarmusch’s floundering lowlife criminals and gamblers.
I prefer those 4 films you mention but Jeanne Dielman has way too much to say to at all be considered a gimmick, imo.
How could you say Ackerman’s work is more of a gimmick than Brakhage’s?
What? Dog Star Man is so meaning dense… and what he’s doing is so much more creative/unique than what’s going on in Jeanne Dielmann.
Maybe. I watched it once and all I got out of it was the messing with physical film and colorful stimulation. Then again I actually do recall liking it more than Jeanne Dielman
sexism is one way someone could say that.
Between you and me, I’m really excited about Heat and the ring dings!
It's a film I always wanted to see ya know regular life as a film then I watched and almost fell asleep 😅
my medium warm take is increasingly people feel they simply can’t submit a best of list with all male directors. because Jeanne Dielman is one of a short list of critically established female directed films, it ended up on the most lists and thus made it to number one, even if there are precious few people who think it’s actually the best film ever
[удалено]
Lol
I unironically enjoy Heat more.
Why must we pit two queens against each other?
These posts age as well as Yoko Ono bashing.
She was insufferable screaming gibberish over Chuck Barry and John Lennon's duet on stage. She also forced Julian to buy letters from his father at auction because she refused to give them to him.
Right on cue. Your hero John Lennon was a saint in his personal life who chose to be with Yoko and create music with her 40+ years ago, but you still mad about Chuck "Barry".
Meh, I think John is overrated and also a dick to Julian. My favorite is Paul 😍
Stick to what you like then, and I'll do the same.
Jesus, am I not allowed to say how I feel? I don't think she needs to be crucified, but this recent deification of Yoko makes me roll my eyes. I think there's some merit to the performance art aspect but she also comes off as a trash person just like John, just with less talent.
Cool that you have the same feelings that have been expressed for 6 decades now. Just seems odd to chime in about not bashing Yoko by bashing Yoko again. Who has time like that to spend on things they're not interested in? I certainly don't.
I was just scrolling the comments and saw yours. I didn't seek your comment out. You sound a little narcissistic honestly. Like I came looking to shit on your parade. If someone says something that feels dishonest, sometimes I can't keep the thought to myself. Yoko wasn't the Devil, but she also wasn't the second coming.
Well then I guess you're just arguing with yourself because no one made those claims here.
Is that honestly how you view any conflicting or alternative view? Anyone who doesn't see it your way is arguing? I don't get how a person can be so combative and spend time on a place that encourages sharing opinions/ideas, etc. Whatever.
Is it true the first dinner John and Yoko had together was veal cutlets?
He’s right
For me the action is the juice.
I say this regularly in my day to day life. I have one friend who gets it.
All I am.. I what I’m going after.
I'm 3 of the 4. No movie is better than Heat.
It’s hard matching the joke to the picture. There was an episode where Elaine made fun of artsy movies and just wanted to watch a cheap comedy. I think it was called “Sack Lunch” Seinfeld isn’t helping this joke.
Neither can hold a candle to "Cry, Cry Again".
Bravo.
nothing is better than heat
I can think of several hundred films lol
BLOCKED
Proud to be a member, and I'd die on this hill. As high art or entertainment, I'd place Heat above Jeanne Dielman 23.
Puffer coat is obsessed with heat.
It’s gore tex
You like saying Gore-Tex don't you?
I haven’t seen Jeanne Dielman yet, but Heat is def overrated. Its not bad but its not as brilliant as everyone says
[удалено]
I was in the same "I can't imagine myself ever watching this again" boat after the first viewing but I did end up watching it again and got so much more out of it the second time round. It's phenomenal.
>3 hours of day to day life for one shocker at the end is pretty ballsy This shows that you missed what was happening during those 3 hours. Why do so may people think that's all that it is?
Never even heard of Jeanne Dielman until that list came out, then I watched it (in sessions). I just thought to myself self “really? This is what these people consider the best movie of all time?”
The list doesn’t necessarily mean everybody thinks it’s the best movie of all time. It’s just what a lot of people gravitated towards that year
It just means a bunch of people voted it in their top 10
I watched it recently in one sitting, but wanted to before the last release of the poll, I just couldn't until recently due to the lack of availability, but saw it was on BFI Player. This at number one is going to put a lot of people off looking further into the list at much better movies, in my opinion. I'm not against long films (seen Napoleon and other movies of a similar length to Jeanne) and I like slow cinema (Stalker is in my top 10 and I'm currently tackling Out 1) but it just wasn't that good to me. My wife had the same reaction as you as well.
I’m not against long movies either, A Brighter Summer Day is one of my all time favorites. Jeanne Dielman is just not a very good movie, I understand its importance, but definitely not for me.
(In sessions) invalidates your opinion.
Yeah, I hate to be snobbish about these things, since people have stuff to do. If you wanna break Seven Samurai or The Irishman over a couple of days, that's fine with me. However, in the case of Jeanne Dielmann, you absolutely have to watch it all in one sitting. Feeling the boredom is the point.
No movie should be broken up over days. That’s not how it’s meant to be seen. Taking like a 10 minute break during a 3 hour movie sure but coming back and seeing it the next day is gross
Oops, guess I'm gross then. Look, people are busy. Or maybe you start a movie and get really tired halfway through. It's really not that big a deal to pause it and finish it the next day. Sure, it's not how the filmmaker "intended" it to be seen, but if you're watching it at home, you're already probably not watching it in the way the filmmaker intended.
This subreddit in particular attracts some pretty nasty film snob/wannabe critic personalities. Gatekeeping how people are allowed to enjoy movies is wild to me.
This whole attitude of “don’t disagree with people, that’s rude and snobbish and gatekeeping” is really weird. So if someone says “I watched Jeanne Dielman on my phone and it was boring and it sucks” everyone is supposed to just be like “I respect your opinion”? Is David Lynch a gatekeeper because he talked about how shameful it is to watch movies on a phone or laptop with bad sound? Obviously people are allowed to do whatever they want but people can also point out that they experienced something in a suboptimal way and therefore their criticism carries less weight. If someone says they don’t think Richebourg is a great wine because it tastes weird mixed with sprite is everyone supposed to say that’s valid? It’s gatekeeping to say well you’re a fucking idiot for adding sprite to a $5,000 bottle of wine? Somebody saying they watched Jeanne Dielman in sessions and then shitting on it and people who gave it its due attention and recognize it’s brilliance is ridiculous and it’s totally valid to say you’re watching movies wrong.
This response actually proved my point so well I don’t think I even need to defend it. Edit: I guess I do have to defend it so here goes. >So if someone says “I watched Jeanne Dielman on my phone and it was boring and it sucks” everyone is supposed to just be like “I respect your opinion”? No, but you don't have to respect an opinion for it to be valid. >Is David Lynch a gatekeeper because he talked about how shameful it is to watch movies on a phone or laptop with bad sound? Depends on the context. If he's lamenting that people who do this are ignorant of how superior the cinema experience is, then no, that's not gatekeeping. If he's saying they specifically deserve to be shamed for watching the way they enjoy, then yes. >Obviously people are allowed to do whatever they want but people can also point out that they experienced something in a suboptimal way and therefore their criticism carries less weight. I agree completely. A critique carrying less weight is not the same as being invalidated. > If someone says they don’t think Richebourg is a great wine because it tastes weird mixed with sprite is everyone supposed to say that’s valid? Yes, but if I would probably not engage in that discussion beyond telling them that most people drink the wine by itself and that their opinion would likely change if they did so. I wouldn't tell them they're wrong for enjoying it how they want. > It’s gatekeeping to say well you’re a fucking idiot for adding sprite to a $5,000 bottle of wine? Nope, not gatekeeping. You are entitled to your opinions just as they are entitled to theirs. This is just a more aggressive way of saying what I said above. >Somebody saying they watched Jeanne Dielman in sessions and then shitting on it and people who gave it its due attention and recognize it’s brilliance is ridiculous and it’s totally valid to say you’re watching movies wrong. Again, they're not watching movies wrong. They're just getting a different experience. It's subtle but saying "your opinion is invalid" versus "you will have a totally different experience watching this all at once as the filmmaker intended" is the difference between gatekeeping and being supportive.
They're right though. Its similar to people watching horror movies in the middle of the day and then complaining about it not being scary. Its not snobbish lol but I smell projection
Opinions and criticisms are just opinions and criticisms. In your example, the opinion is not outright invalidated like that other dude claims just because you watched a horror movie during the day and felt like it wasn’t scary. It’s just an opinion that you, as someone who will be watching in the dark, can choose to consider or not consider. If I’m only going to watch horror movies in the dark, I’m not going to take that particular criticism into consideration when deciding whether to watch the movie/develop my own opinion after that fact. A non-gatekeeping/snobbish way to address this situation would be “I would recommend re-watching it in the dark (or uninterrupted) to really understand the point the filmmaker was trying to make.” Compare that to “You watched in sessions so your opinion is invalidated” or “The way you watch movies is wrong.” Disagreeing and gatekeeping aren’t the same things. Telling someone their opinion of art or how to consume it is *wrong* can definitely be gatekeeping.
I always reason that it's way better to enjoy the rest of the film tomorrow than trudge through it half asleep. Neither is ideal -- will always vastly prefer finishing it all in one sitting and it's a shame when I can't, but sometimes you just get sleepy
If you’re rewatching something then sure I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. But stopping a movie and coming back the next day is just weird. How are you supposed to fully experience the emotions of the film if you don’t watch it all in one sitting? Just doesn’t feel like the right way to watch something. And nobody is that busy lol. Saying you’re too busy to watch carve out 4 hours to see a movie is crazy. If you’ve got a small child then I guess I can see it but generally speaking nobody is that busy
I'm capable of remembering my experience and emotions up to the point that I paused the movie. People generally don't read novels in one sitting and they're also usually capable of experiencing the emotional turns of the story just fine. I have a busy life. I have a young child. I used to agree with you and watched like a couple of movies a month at most. Then I thought "fuck it" and I started watching movies in sessions. I watch many more movies now and I'm very happy with it. I have seen such incredible masterpieces in 2023 that I would've missed otherwise. I agree with you that it's preferable. But I don't see an unovercomeable problem.
Being able to easily fit 4-hour films into your schedule is not necessarily a good thing.
You’ve been conditioned into thinking a busy life makes it more meaningful. Make time to slow down and appreciate art
Some people don’t need or want to appreciate one piece of art for 4 hours in a single day. Why do you think that is objectively more desirable than otherwise not doing that?
If they don’t want to sure, whatever but not being able to because you “can’t fit it into your schedule” just seems like a poor excuse. If your life is so busy you can’t set aside an afternoon to do something you love than you need to recalibrate how you’re spending your time. If you truly love film or art or whatever but can’t make the time then maybe you don’t actually love those things that much
This. Not even art, just slowing down.
I'm not saying it's the best way to watch a movie (although, with certain movies with intermissions, it can actually work quite well), but neither is pushing through with a movie if you're tired. I would much rather take a break and watch the rest of the movie with my full attention later. And yeah, lots of people *are* that busy. Not breaking up certain ultra-long movies means that some people would likely never watch them at all.
[удалено]
Lol weird thing to say when he’s one of the best artists ever. And btw I don’t support neo Nazi Ye I was just pointing out Peggy doesn’t like Burzum
But it's not just about boredom!
No, but experiencing the monotony of her life is a crucial aspect of the movie. And you don't feel it nearly as much if you split the movie up.
Obviously, and I always insist people watch it in one go. But what even many people who like and defend the film seem to miss is the subtle unraveling that occurs over the course of the film. It's all very intentional, but you have to pay attention to the details to notice that. So many people think it's just this lady doing boring, monotonous chores and then a big, unexpected payoff at the end, and that's not doing it justice—it's like treating it like it's just some extended jump-scare. I hate even describing it because I feel like it spoils the film to point it out beforehand, but again, I see it over and over on this sub even from the film's defenders.
Oh no, my day is ruined 🥲
It just goes to show you that the only opinion that should really matter to you is your own. Having said that, I agree. It is not better than most of the movies on that list or many of the movies that didn’t make the list at all.
Totally agree.
I mean, plenty of people at the time called its selection as #1 the nakedly political statement that it was.
it's better than *Heat.* I love *Heat,* but yes it's better than *Heat.*
I love Jeanne Dielman but with a full year to digest, it’s fucking absurd that it became number 1. A much needed rectifying moment in the history of art but hopefully the pendulum swings back to somewhere more reasonable. Also Ackerman has made better films.
I don't think Jeanne Dielman is a masterpiece although it's very good but it's definitely better than Heat.
Hardest I’ve ever laughed at something on this site
I watched heat and thought it was meh
Same, I enjoyed thief like twice as much, in fact thief is my top 10 films, heat isn’t.
But what about LA Takedown
I haven’t actually seen it.
It's on youtube. Heat is one of my favorite films and I still can't get all the way through Takedown. But it's really funny to see lesser actors butchering the scenes I know so well.
So la takedown is the same film? I noticed Michael rooker is in it - he’s a good actor imo. Have you seen thief?
Love Thief! I consider it a Heat prototype as well. LA Takedown is a 1989 low budget tv movie based on an early draft of Heat. It’s 90% similar with a lot of the exact same dialogue and scenes.
Honestly, not even caring about what’s number one, like are you gonna tell me there’s 100 movies better than Star Wars or Jurassic Park? Balderdash. My biggest problem with the list is how few ‘fun’ movies there are, and how all of them are from the 1960s and earlier. Like Singin in the Rain and the Apartment get grandfathered in, but god forbid we admit a fun movie from the last 50 years is actually great. Nothing against those two examples as I think they’re both great. It’s just there’s a clear bias.
It’s more that there is a stronger consensus on what the best highbrow movies are, but everyone’s favourite ‘fun’ movie is more personal and prone to vary. If you look at the individual ballots most people have a fun one.
Are you looking at the full 250+ list, or just the top 100? Star Wars is there at #225, Alien is #146, Raiders of the Lost Ark is #211, My Neighbor Totoro is #72, The Matrix is #122, Spirited Away is #75, and Mad Max: Fury Road is #196. Also, they may not be "happy" fun, but I still consider movies like The Shining, Get Out, and Parasite fun, and they're all in the top 100. I get what you're saying, especially since I've thought myself that a disproportionately large amount of the movies on the list seem to have a more depressing tone (tho I'm far from completing my watch-through of it). But, they haven't completely ignored newer fun stuff.
You know, I'm usually a defender of less "fun movies" in favor of high art, but this is a great point. When a movie is made before 1960 or so we don't treat it as "lowbrow" or "fun" even when that's what it is, save for lowest of the low cheap B movies.
Problem is people like you with poor comprehension not understanding what they're interpreting. Would a significant portion of the voters include star wars / Jurassic park or more 'fun' movies (bullshit term) in a top 100? Absolutely. But would you include them in your top 10? Because thats what this is, a collation of top 10 lists which is why it heavily leans into the artistic side. As much as I love Jurassic Park and Star Wars they aren't making my top 10 list. Something like Midnight Run will though.
Accurate
🤣🤣😂😂😂
4 people? We've all fucking seen Jean Dielman man
Still discussing about that poll? Sight & Sound is finished, just like auteur cinema
settle down boys. you'll make a good movie someday
The heat is awesome but ending is not my favorite
[удалено]
You didn’t like the part where Melissa McCarthy gun down Robert De Niro at the airport?
Peep show?
so much jeanne dielman hate in this thread, but also several people saying they couldn't watch it in one session and people saying it's only praised because it's by a woman? hard to know how seriously to take these comments jeanne dielman is great in part because it's so emotionally impactful for such a formalistically experimental and "slow" film that spends something like 4/5 of its runtime on mundane events, and it's one of those things that just doesn't can't hit you in the gut if you're watching it in 20 minute bites because you need to settle into the tempo of the film.
Is this guy something or is this guy something?
He's right