Kane Tops S&S Poll Again

[Lee Gordon]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Movies/08/09/kane.reut/index.html

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_646704.html?menu=

Kane has been voted the best film of all time in Sight & Sound magazine's twin international polls of directors and critics that are run every 10 years. Citizen Kane has topped the critics' poll each decade for the past 40 years.

The Third Man was number 35 in the critics' list.

...' The editor of Sight & Sound, Nick James, said he was not surprised Citizen Kane continued to garner so much respect. "For the last 40 years Citizen Kane has topped the critics' poll confirming Orson Welles, the director, as the Shakespeare of modern cinema," he said'

Kane was the # 1 choice of both Critics and directors

[Jeff Wilson]

No real surprises on that list. Wasn't Ambersons on the last list they did? I wonder where it placed this time. I see also that seven of Welles' films were voted for: Kane, Ambersons, Lady from Shanghai, Touch of Evil, Trial, Chimes, and F for Fake. Welles was also best director in both the critics and directors' polls. Not that any of this will help get Other Side of the Wind, or any other Welles projects get jumpstarted, though.

[mteal]

Sadly, that's probably true. And for me that's one of the biggest ironies of the list. Welles is so hugely (and justly)revered for Kane, and yet not for a whole lot else, in many people's estimation. I did notice though, that Touch of Evil got 17 votes, which is a very impressive showing (Ambersons got 7 votes, Chimes 5). I've no doubt that this is largely due to Rick's restoration. I hope it still has a good showing for the 2112 list. I have no doubt that Kane will.

BTW, did you notice that Jonathon Rosenbaum had NO Welles films on his list? Curious.
And for a good grin, check out Tarentino's list.

[Jeff Wilson]

Rosenbaum's rationale was that Welles, Ozu, and a handful of other directors he mentioned no longer need be put on such lists, because the greatness of their films is so well known. I'm not sure I agree with his reasoning, but I can see why he did it.

[ChristopherBanks]

The Telegraph's account was not willing to give Welles much praise at all (perhaps the British are miffed that no British films made the top 10?).

Nicky James, the editor of Sight & Sound, as well as saying he is surprised that the film still resonated after all these years, said:

"I would have thought that with the passing of time it would have replaced with another film," he said. "It is a burden because Citizen Kane can never match anyone's xpectations. People see it and ask, 'Why isn't it more entertaining?'"

He then goes on to make a "textbook" analysis of the movie:

"But Welles's movie changed the way films were made. It changed the way cameras moved, how we used sound, the idea of overlapping dialogue, and heavy symbolism were also new."

Interesting that he sees "heavy symbolism" in the film, considering Welles says several times in TIOW that he hates symbols.

Later in the article, the scoff from the Telegraph's critic Sukhdev Sandhu is almost audible when he says:

"Citizen Kane? Oh God. It's that sort of artificial consensus that develops around films. I would never say the films chosen were bad, but I feel these lists rarely throw up any
quirky titles."

He also said the results were evidence of an "accepted good taste canon" agreed upon by "elitist" critics.

I'm tired of this Welles-bashing. "The Godfather" and "Vertigo" also poll consistently high in these types of surveys and nobody ever complains.

[mteal]

I don't see how Sandhu can say that the BFI poll hasn't thrown up any quirky titles. Looks like they've got everything from The Sound of Music to Deep Throat (Some of the pollees seemed to throw up nothing but quirky titles). I guess he's talking about the Top 10, but to me, that's the least interesting part of the poll. It's more fun to check out who picked what or seeing how my favorite films fared. As Roger Ebert said, the list is more about trends then anything else.

I forgot to read Rosenbaum's comments. Yes, that's strange reasoning, but I'm glad to see someone mention Dreyer's Gertrud, a good film whose sombre (there's that word again), elegiac tone reminds me a bit of Ambersons.

[Obssessed_with_Orson]

still #1.

still everybody's jealousy. ???

bye now!

[LA]

CBanks said: "The Telegraph's account was not willing to give Welles much praise at all (perhaps the British are miffed that no British films made the top 10?)."

I haven't read that Telegraph's account, though I've been looking for it on their site. Where can I find it?

Re: No British films in the Top Ten, I think that the reason the Telegraph's critic (and bear in mind of course that there are other film critics in Britain, and his isn't neccesarily a representative view) didn't give him much praise would probably be that Kane winning isn't a great suprise. Some of these critics would like to see a more suprising list. The problem is also credibility: some writers and critics base their careers on going against the grain of any received opinion they can find, and what better target than a film that has been winning for forty years? I suppose Vertigo and The Godfather will get the same trouble when they reach sixty.

Overall, IMHO the list isn't too bad this year, less ties than last year, great to see Sunrise in the list, for the first time if I'm not mistaken, though it's a pity that Vigo, Satyajit Ray and Dreyer had to lose out. Welles being rated top director is great news, especially as this year a lot of attention seems to have been paid to Welles' later films. The rediscovery of Touch Of Evil is great news.

I agree with mteal, The individual critics' and directors' lists are the most interesting part of the exercise. I like Rosenbaum's reasoning, at a time when some people seem to want to talk down for the sake of popularity (that "People see it and ask, 'Why isn't it more entertaining?'"" comment is a prime example), Rosenbaum's deliberate inclusion of films more likely to be able to "use the publicity" so to speak, is, IMHO, very constructive.

I'm glad to see that most of the individual lists are very vibrant and varied, and full of things I haven't seen. I'm also glad to see that most of Bresson's films get a mention, that someone noticed how good The Trial is, and that Scorsese made the Directors' Directors list.

Aren't lists great? Hours of fun. I agree with Richard Linklater's comment though, after his own Top Ten: "Now that cinema is in its third century, can we have, at the very least, a top 20? Ten is too severe a limitation - too many great films and directors excluded, too much anxiety. This has to stop."

Could anyone here imagine constricting themselves to ten? Whenever I think of compiling a Top Ten I always end up with about six films too many, that I don't want to exclude.

[ChristopherBanks]

Sorry, a friend emailed me the article, and the Telegraph site requires you to be a member, so I can't get the exact link. (My friend seems to have lost it also)

If you like, email me christopherbanks@email.com and I can send you back a copy of the article.

[mteal]

Jeff,
That's a good write-up about the S&S poll in the news section. I disagree with you about 2001, but aside from that it was well said.

LA,
I also agree with Linklater that a top 20 - or even a top 25 or 30 or 50 - would be much more interesting. Given how many hundreds of thousands of films have been made, a top 10 is pretty absurd and doesn't really tell us that much (not that a top 30 or 50 would be that much less absurd, but I think it would be more interesting - maybe we WOULD get more surprises that way). But now here's a question that Wellesnetters might want to ponder: why do you suppose it is that CITIZEN KANE is still so clearly considered the greatest film of all time? We all know it's a great film, but why "The Greatest"? Or, to quote another recent newsgroup thread, how has Kane managed to "keep it's 'No Trespassing' sign on the #1 slot" for so long?

[Peter Tonguette]

For me, what's a little disheartening about CK topping the list yet again is that I both disagree with that placement (I think what remains of "Ambersons," "Touch of Evil," and especially "Chimes at Midnight" are richer, more mature, and more personal works) but it also serves to support the popular notion that Welles burned out with his first film. This works >against< efforts to get his unreleased work available to the public.

Lists like these do have influence and I wish, for the sake of OW's legacy, some of his other work would be more widely acknowledged. In this light, the 17 votes for ToE was certainly heartening and maybe if everyone on WellesNet rallies together we can get votes for "Chimes" up to 10 by the next poll.

Peter

[Jeff Wilson]

I disagree with you about 2001, but aside from that it was well said.

But that's my point exactly. Like I said, I can see why people consider it a great film, but it does nothing for me. Just like there are people who find Kane boring, overrated, etc. The idea of coming to a consensus opinion about art is generally rather silly. Not that it stops people from making up lists, because they're fun to do. I know we did a similar exercise here a few months ago, which was interesting. It's more fun to see what other people have chosen, frankly.

As for why Kane continues its hold on the top spot, that's an interesting question. Part of it no doubt is the simple matter of Kane's brilliance, but maybe the other part is just a hesitation toward the idea of a new "greatest film ever". I mean, how can one film go from being the best to no longer being so good? Sooner or later, the backlash will come and Kane will be dethroned, and it will likely come from people disenchanted with the idea of no film since being better, and get Godfather, 2001, or Vertigo, etc into that spot.

It would perhaps make sense to retire films from the poll, should they wish to continue it, as David Thomson suggested in an article on Kane. He wanted it done for different reasons, it seemed, but as Rosenbaum commented, films like Kane, Godfather, Seven Samurai, 2001, and so on no longer need to be trumpeted as great-we all know they are, or at least most of us agree that's the case.

Rambling post over.

[ChristopherBanks]

It will come to a point, I think, (and I'm guessing it will be around the 100-year mark) where it will become critic-proof and be elevated to an even loftier status.

The irony is that it may end up becoming, not a film to enjoy, but merely a work to be clinically studied (film schools worldwide do this to it already), and being treated in exactly the way that Welles detested the treatment of Shakespeare in today's schools and universities.

[Cole]

By the way, Sight and Sound did provide a longer list of the critics' top choices, but they hid the results under a link allowing website visitors to vote for their favorite movies. Here is that list with the number of votes each movie received. Again, this is from the critics' poll.


Sight and Sound Critics Poll 2002

1. Citizen Kane (Welles) 46
.........................................................................
2. Vertigo (Hitchcock) 41
.........................................................................
3. La Regle du jeu (Renoir) 30
.........................................................................
4. The Godfather and The Godfather Part II (Coppola) 23
.........................................................................
5. Tokyo Story (Ozu) 22
.........................................................................
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick) 21
.........................................................................
7-8. Battleship Potemkin (Eisenstein) 19
7-8. Sunrise (Murnau) 19
.........................................................................
9. 8 1/2 (Fellini) 18
.........................................................................
10. Singin' in the Rain (Kelly, Donen) 17
.........................................................................
11-12. Seven Samurai (Kurosawa) 15
11-12. The Searchers (Ford) 15
.........................................................................
13. Rashomon (Kurosawa) 14
.........................................................................
14. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer) 12
.........................................................................
15-18. A bout de souffle (Godard) 11
15-18. L'Atalante (Vigo) 11
15-18. The General (Keaton) 11
15-18. Touch of Evil (Welles) 11
.........................................................................
19-21. Au hasard Balthazar (Bresson) 10
19-21. Jules et Jim (Truffaut) 10
19-21. L'avventura (Antonioni) 10
.........................................................................
22-23. Le Mepris (Godard) 9
22-23. Pather Panchali (S. Ray) 9
.........................................................................
24-26. La dolce vita (Fellini) 8
24-26. M (Lang) 8
24-26. The Story of the Late Chrysanthemums (Mizoguchi) 8


Since The Third Man reportedly came in at 35th place with 6 votes, that means a lot of movies tied for 35th place including Magnificent Ambersons, Psycho, Modern Times, Grand Illusion and probably others. I was just randomly looking at the votes received by some notable movies and saw that these films all received 6 votes each by the critics.

With respect to Mteal's question, I thought we'd all have a similar response. You take the most talented director, give him the best equipment available, allow him to make an ambitious movie and have complete control over the final product. End result: best movie of all time.

If I have a complaint about Kane always coming in first place on these polls, which I am otherwise very delighted to see, it is that it has the effect of overshadowing the other movies Welles made. And not only does this promote the fallacy that Welles "burned out" after Kane, but it also promotes the fallacy that the only reason Kane is so good is because Welles closely collaborated with other people. Maybe if Sight and Sound displayed the top-50 lists, which would also show both Touch of Evil and Magnificent Ambersons, that would help dispel these ideas.

[jaime marzol]

................

so we don't have to delete this list some time in the future, you can legally post all the sight and sound lists as long as you say it's a sight and sound list, and post a link to their site.