I can't help but feel like the original list from 1998 was a better representation of the epic scope of American filmography. In another ten years we probably won't be seeing the likes of Do the Right Thing or Sixth Sense or maybe even The Lord of the Rings on the list anymore, and some other great movies that keep getting shafted will have a shot.
shareI agree.
share
Yeah...then we'll get Paris Hilton on the list. Stick with the old list.
- - SoundTrak
Do The Right Thing needs to stay on that list.
If you truly love JESUS, copy and paste this in your signature.
Did they put it on because Spike Lee never won an Oscar? No, unlike what they said last night, people don't go crazy just because of high temperatures.
- - SoundTrak
For those of you who are giving the old list such kudos, perhaps you forgot how much you were debating that one 10 years ago...
I always knew, but now I know.
No, I don't know. I didn't go online till 2002.
- - SoundTrak
"For those of you who are giving the old list such kudos, perhaps you forgot how much you were debating that one 10 years ago..."
Well that's true but there's no denying this list is certainly worse. I don't think people are giving the old list kudos but when you compare the two the first list is superior.
Either way, no matter which list is better, the AFI proved one thing: It messed up completely. That has to be true. Look at the movement...it's not like new films were moving old films out, or films made from 1993-1996 could better be evaluated (though there were some of each in both instances). They did correct a few big problems, but, here's the biggest question I have:
How does On The Waterfront, 10 years ago called the 8th greatest film of all-time, suddenly lose appeal and become the 19th best film of all-time, whereas The General, not on the list last time (and certainly just as eligible), suddenly becomes better at #18? I just can't take this list as seriously as I did the first one. I'm not sure either are terrific lists, but the first one was certainly better.
And the "39th greatest film of all-time" Doctor Zhivago being dropped completely?
I'm not going to say it's all bad. There were a few things I feel were corrected like the inclusion of a few movies (12 Angry Men and The Shawshank Redemption for examples) and removing a few that didn't need to be there (Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and A Place in the Sun for examples), as well as correcting some numbering issues, but some things just bewilder me. The world will always consider The Birth of a Nation and The Jazz Singer more relevant than movies that went in for them, especially the Jazz Singer...the first ever talking picture, and just as good quality as some of the silent pictures they put in, so I have no idea where that went. The Birth of a Nation I'm not upset about because of its content, but it's still historically and visually more important than Intolerance.
---------------------------------------
Proud Yucca: Touch a button...things happen.
ON THE WATERFRONT probably lost appeal because of the controversy around
it's director, Elia Kazan, and his unwillingness to apologize for his
role in the 50's witchhunts. Politics does play a role more so in the
latest group of "experts" doing the selecting. BIRTH OF A NATION got
the shaft for the same reason -- politics --, and if you don't think
politics kept BROKEBACK MT. off this years list, think about how the
anti-gay backlash kept it out of the Oscar winning circle in favor of
the inferior CRASH choice last year.
What we see this year is a more groveling to elitist critics than on the
first list. Popularity seems less important than pleasing cliques of fans.
How else can one explain the presence of a flop like BLADE RUNNER on this
new list? Or SOPHIES CHOICE? Or the ridiculous numbering that places
RAGING BULL, a wallow in grossness, AHEAD of GONE WITH THE WIND and
IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE?
As for importance...well ANYTHING Steven Spielberg does is automatically
considered important to them. Why not...he's a member of AFI's board! So
no less than six of his films make the list. INTOLERANCE? Don't be
surprised if they next drop Cimino's DEER HUNTER for HEAVEN'S GATE!
I'm sticking with the old list as you should as well.
- - SoundTrak
Elia Kazan had nothing to apologize for. Who should, those kiss asses to Josef Stalin! There is no such thing as Witches but Communists were not just liberals with bad breath and bad suits, they were no different then the Nazi's. You don't think so I suggest you read 'The Black Book of Communism'. Six (6) million people were killed between 1932 and 1934 alone during their forced collectivation and tell me how well did that work out?
share ON THE WATERFRONT had special meaning for Kazan since Brando's character
is an informer against the mob of union bosses. Kazan gives this character
lots of justification for his squealing. Nevertheless, many in Hollywood,
like actor Nick Nolte, thought Kazan should have apologized. Kazan's other
movie on the list, A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, which is apolitical, went from
45 to 47th place. This proves my point that politics had a hand in crafting
this year's list more than 1997.
- - SoundTrak
We saw the Academy Award when Kazan recieved his honorariam and saw the poor manners of Nolte, Ed Harris and the rest of the lunitic left losers. Never thought that confirming the truth was 'squealing'. A term more suitable for a 3rd grade playground then the political arena.
sharedo the right things?? never heard of....
share
A few points to clear up:
1) So this list is more politically charged than 10 years ago. THat is a symptom of our times, not of the film community at large. Look for the bigger issues. Don't blame the list.
2) Blade Runner deserves to be on this list because it is THE defining film about post-modernism, in almost all of its facets. Since we're still living in the post-modern age, it's a damn important film.
3) I doubt On the Waterfront dropped in popularity because of Kazan's politics. I would really be surprised if that were the case. The film dropped because in 10 years its appeal HAS dropped. It's becoming slightly dated. It's still a great movie, but the current generation doesn't have as much interest in older films.
4) Booting out the Jazz Singer and The Birth of a Nation in favor of Sunrise, The General, and Intolerance simply means that this list is focused more on FILMIC QUALITY than CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE. Deal with it.
Let's just face it people. For better or for worse, we aren't the same society we were 10 years ago. Priorities have changed, and yes, maybe we do bow to politics a little more easily than before. And it's good to fight against those currents. But that kind of fight belongs in the newspapers, in the courts, in the streets, in government institutions. These specials are meant to be an appreciation of film as an art form, as entertainment, as a shared community, as an introduction to a medium. If you're gonna complain about politics, do it somewhere else.
I suppose this means that ten years from now we'll be enshrining Paris
Hilton and Borat? A new list to go with each new generation? Why not
forget about film as an art form and vote for the top 100 You Tube
offerings, then?
Cult films and the near-great ones are no substitutes for great.
INTOLERANCE will never take the place of BIRTH OF A NATION. THE
SEARCHERS will never be as good as STAGECOACH. This is like
replacing PSYCHO with THE BIRDS.
Movies are to be appreciated as creations of their time. Television
will never take the place of movies, no matter how special we
think special is. The AFI is just another reality show.
- - SoundTrak
The 2007 list was way better than the original list.
share