The 2002 Sight and Sound Top Ten Poll. (found by way of this Slate article.) Held once a decade, it’s worth perusing for a glimpse into the tastes that drive many film directors and critics. Unlike the Slate writer, I have no issues with Citizen Kane being No. 1, although he’s right in noting it’s a bit dubious to consider the first two Godfathers together. By that logic Godfather III should drag ’em all out of the top twenty.
7 thoughts on “Nobody picked Dude, Where’s My Car?”
Comments are closed.
Citizen Kane is like David Bowie. Nobody remembers why he’s supposed to be so great anymore. Dude, Where’s my Car on the other hand… 😉
I disagree. I could see, even now, why citizen kane is considered one of the best ever. Aside from the fact that its underlying themes are timeless (timelessness seeming to be one of the ubiquitous characteristics of any great cinematic piece); it was a movie created grossly ahead of its time (50 years maybe?) and it was revolutionary in its sequence, filming, manuscript, and acting. Add to that the fact that it was directed, written, and starred by a 24 year old prodigy who undertook his first film endeavor; it is easy to see why, even without these aforementioned and significant intangibles, why it would be considered one of the best or even the best movie ever made.
On the other hand, I don’t see Bowie’s “artsy rock” as timeless, significantly ahead of its time or revolutionary.
One more thing….these critics are jokes. I’ve seen all the films on their list save one and, they might deem me “lacking in culture”, but most of those movies had such overt messages coupled with some of the most boring dialogue I have ever heard/read that I simply think that while “intellectually challenging” they are not entertaining at all. I believe entertainment is a cornerstone in any movie, no matter the genre….so that’s why is doesn’t surprise me that critics pan such great movies as “Raging Bull” and “Dr. Strangelove”. Both intriguing, entertaining, and at times even hilarious movies; they appeal to a wide range of audiences yet are cinematic masterpieces. Having this combination is what makes a movie great, not one (simply pandering to the masses) or the other (are cinematically groundbreaking.)
I’m totally behind Citizen Kane. I watched it a few times last fall, and it still feels like it could’ve been made yesterday. (By the way, Welles was 26.) Regarding your screed about the poll, Chris, I’m not sure I agree. For one, both Raging Bull and Strangelove got lots of votes…it’s not like either of them was panned. For another, which movies on the list are you deeming unentertaining? Kane, Vertigo, Godfather, 2001, 8.5, and Singin’ in the Rain are all undeniably entertaining. Potemkin’s a bit long in the tooth but still groundbreaking for it’s time. I can’t really comment on the other 3.
And, while not a huge fan, I’d listen to Bowie over 47 of the top 50 Billboard albums on any given week.
I was referring more towards directors Renoir and Ozu. While superb, I wouldn’t place their work up there with Welles, Kubrick, or Hitchcock. I agree with you that the Godfather combination is ridiculous. It clearly gives it an unfair advantage over other flicks since directors could, either overtly or unconciously, vote for this duo because they are in essence killing two birds with one stone. Potemkin was ok, but I’ve fallen asleep among its duration 2 of 3 times. Drags on … Comparing the two lists differences, it seems to me that the directors focused more upon what was entertaining (my definition aforementioned) rather than simply the cerebral elements of the films like the critics seemed to do a bit more. As for my vote, I chose ‘Kane because Raging Bull wasn’t there. But I’d have to flip a coin daily to pick my fav between those two. Also, did you notice on the list that as time progresses….the quality of moviemaking is steadily decreasing!?!?!?
Maybe that applies to music, literature, and everything else as well….(per your Bowie comment)