AFI's new top 100 American films??

[gp101]

Did anyone watch the show last night? I didn't know it was happening but caught the list on their website. I'm more disappointed with this list than I was with their original list a decade ago.

Casablanca--my personal number one--dropped from second to third; no big deal. But what's with all the musicals? Are people really that enamored with them today? Quite a few placed higher than Pulp Fiction which I think dropped considerably. To me, Pulp is our generation's Citizen Kane and chould be in the top ten. And Titanic (not included in the original because it was released the same year as the list), is listed as 80-something, I think. Doesn't seem right.

Star Wars, not in top ten... does that seem right? Raging Bull as number 4? Isn't that a bit high? I dunno... it's all subjective, but I figured the top twenty would be controversial in that the order would be debated by a spot or two, not by measures of 30 or 40 spots.

[dpaterso]

Damned intellectuals voting for their arty films!

http://www.afi.com/
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/news.php?id=6453

-Derek

[Plot Device]

Thanks, dpat. This list from your second link is very helpful. :)


AFI asks jurors to consider the following criteria in their selection process:


Feature-Length Fiction Film: Narrative format, typically over 60 minutes in length.
American Film: Motion picture with significant creative and/or production elements from the United States.
Critical Recognition: Formal commendation in print, television and digital media.
Major Award Winner: Recognition from competitive events including awards from peer groups, critics, guilds and major film festivals.
Popularity Over Time: Including success at the box office, television and cable airings, and DVD/VHS sales and rentals.
Historical Significance: A film's mark on the history of the moving image through visionary narrative devices, technical innovation or other groundbreaking achievements.
Cultural Impact: A film's mark on American society in matters of style and substance.
AFI also allowed five write-in votes per ballot.




Of these eight criteria, it can be argued that about half of them are capable of being objectively measured in a quanitative fashion. So I think those objective criteria need to be given their own lists where all 100 of these films are ranked from highest to lowest.

Such as, #5 is perhaps the most objective and quanitfiable. But also, #2, #3, #4, and #6 could also be quantified via actual examples. So trying to achieve a graded numeric weighting for each film is not out of the question here. And #7 might also be quantifiable to some degree.

[bison]

Did you catch the rankings for the top 100 movies of all time?
Citizen Kane (what a movie) was first.
I wish Hollywood would get back to producing quality instead of boom-boom, blow 'em up movies. Either that or sick comedy.
What does that say about our society and our values as a people?

[Lyra Jean]

Is there a link to the list of movies?

[bison]

Yes, ma'am...

http://www.afi.com/tvevents/100years/movies.aspx

[jonpiper]

It's interesting that some films on the 1998 list fell off and otheres came on. Some older films fell off while some pre 1990 films were voted on the list. Also a few films advanced way up on the list while others fell down in the rankings.

Just illustrates the subjective nature of film and the criteria for a truly great film. However the top three remained, but God Father jumped ahead of Casablanca for secon.

[dpaterso]

I merged the two similar threads. Posts are automatically sorted by date/time.

-Derek

[squalid]

Can one of you explain to me why a list of films (or any list) considered to be the best films of all time by very biased self-promoters is so important? After all this is no more than a profitable marketing campaign.
I really would like to understand why it's so important to be told what's good and what's not and then wonder why your favorite movie is no longer where it was the year before?

If it's to promote discussion, fine, but why not discuss the merits of the screenplay or original novels and how they were adapted?

consumed by squalid curiosity

[Plot Device]

I don't think it's a profitable marketing campaign. It's the AFI. They have an interest in promoting excellence in cinema. And therefore some sort of a measure or a standard of excellence needs to be held up for everyone to see and learn from. Thus the need of such a list.

As vile and corrupt as this industry is, it's still an art form, and excellence in art needs to be trumpeted. And the AFI does what they can to try and set some standards for the artistic aspect of it.

[gp101]

Can one of you explain to me why a list of films (or any list) considered to be the best films of all time by very biased self-promoters is so important? After all this is no more than a profitable marketing campaign.
I really would like to understand why it's so important to be told what's good and what's not and then wonder why your favorite movie is no longer where it was the year before?

If it's to promote discussion, fine, but why not discuss the merits of the screenplay or original novels and how they were adapted?

consumed by squalid curiosity


I think we like lists as a society. VH1 virtually makes a living with lists, most of them silly, occupying air space. They wouldn't be doing so if people weren't watching.

I'm no psychologist but I'm willing to bet most of us want our own lists in our heads somewhaat validated by the official AFI list. And of course, It's fun to argue. This is why some sports programs on radio are so popular... when they're not analyzing the game or the trade, they're debating the best baseball player, biggest boxing moment, greatest TD. We all have our opinions and for some silly reason, when it comes to pop culture, we like them voiced.

Too bad we weren't as vocal on a whole when it came to elections.

[gp101]

I'd like to see a top 50 greatest foreign films list. Cinema Paradiso and M would be my tops. Das Boot and Metropolis would be up there. A couple of Kurosawa and a couple of Fellini pics. Eisenstein. A whole lot of recent Italian and Spanish flix.

Would Eastwood's spaghetti westerns make it in such a category? May as well. It's sacriledge that not one of them made it to AFI's top 100. Come to think of it, I don't think any of Clint's films made it.

Those people are stupid.