Vertigo on top! A shocker.

I saw the re-release of Vertigo (after it had been out of circulation for more than 20 years) when I lived in Boston. And in that same week I saw Fanny and Alexander for the first time. Still two of the best movies I've ever seen and a week that completely remade me as a film fan.

I am so happy that Citizen Kane is no longer number one. I hate Citizen Kane. I saw it as a teenager, and I can't even tell you why I hated it, except I thought it was boring. And I loved old movies when I was a kid.

8. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)

I've seen about half the films on each list, but have heard of the rest. Except this one. The fact that three of the ten film on the critics' list are silent films makes me roll my eyes a bit.

I like The Third Man (apparently placed 73rd) better than any of the films listed except for Vertigo. And I am generally unmoved by the works of the the Big Three (Kubrick, Scorcese, and Coppola) so that second list is not doing much for me either. Ah well.

I've seen about half the films in each list, but have heard of the rest. Except this one.

It was almost completely unavailable in the West until it came out on DVD. So it's been highly lauded since its rediscovery. But it probably wouldn't ping your radar if you weren't in film school or a film scholar.

The fact that three of the ten film on the critics' list are silent films make me roll my eyes a bit.

How come? That they're being willfully obscure, or trying to score cool points?

The techniques of silent film masters are often seen as more cinematic/visual because they had to be and they were innovating the forms. The introduction of sound set camera movement back until...well, people like Welles basically.

To me it's no more eye-rolly than admiring Shakespeare's writing, which attains a very high level of technique in a style that's very different from contemporary writing.

That they're being willfully obscure, or trying to score cool points?

A bit of both? Plus a certain impatience for general critical reverence for All Things Past. There have been interesting, dynamic films being made from all over the world in the last 30 years. I just have a hard time beliving 30% of the "best" example of the medium was made in 1920-1930. Innovation of the medium is of great historic interest, of course, but to me, film is a populist medium (which Shakespeare's plays certainly were) and list doesn't much reflect that.

The site is getting hammered right now, but here’s the top 50 list: [link]

Wow, Mulholland Dr. at #28? Huh. It's the most recent movie on the list (2001). And In the Mood for Love at #24 from 2000. And lots of movies I've never heard of.

I just have a hard time beliving 30% of the "best" example of the medium was made in 1920-1930.

I'd think that some of that is that these are the ones that have endured the best, and that's easier to see as time goes on. Thousands of movies were made during that period. Only a tiny portion still remain relevant because they're not dependent on the immediate culture around them to make sense of them. They endure because they're singular.

Mostly what I see when I look at a movie from several decades back are the tropes and historical assumptions of that era. When those get stripped away by time's passage the films that still work create their own aesthetic. Something accessible to any era as long as you can relinquish the tropes of your time to see it on its own terms.

Did they change the name of The Bicycle Thief to Bicycle Thieves? Or am I remembering wrong?

Yeah, I was wondering about that. Maybe it was the sequel (rejected title: 2 Thief 2 Bicycle ).