by Sam Juliano
One of the most beloved films in movie history, and a centerpiece of baby boomer childhood, The Wizard of Oz (1939) was voted the greatest film of the 1930′s by 28 film lovers in a month-long Internet polling that recently concluded. The poll, run by the blogsite, Wonders in the Dark, directed each voter to choose their 25 choices in numerical order of their ‘greatest’ or ‘favorite’ films of the Golden Age decade, and to list them on the appropriate thread. This is the second time that a 30′s poll run by the same group, ended with The Wizard of Oz on top, although the membership of voters in both polls was disperate. In 2005, a Fairview, New Jersey-based e mail network conducted a poll with similar specs, and the Judy Garland starred, based on L. Frank Baum’s children’s work, came in first, based on roughly the same number of voters who participated three years ago.
Voters continually identified with the musical-fantasy, as the one film, above all others that moved them the most from their childhood to their adult-years, unfailingly tapping into their sentiments of nostalgia, childhood memories, and as adults still being moved levels never exhausted.
The Wizard of Oz garnered 392 points in the weighted vote method, and was named first-place film on three ballots. It outdistanced Gone With the Wind, City Lights, La Règle du Jeu (The Rules of the Game) and The Adventures of Robin Hood.
The Complete Top 25 are as follows:
1 The Wizard of Oz (1939 USA, Fleming/Vidor…392)
2 Gone with the Wind (1939 USA, Fleming…335)
3 City Lights (1931 USA, Chaplin…319)
4 La Règle du Jeu (The Rules of the Game) (1939 France, Renoir…280)
5 The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938 USA, Curtiz/Keighley…268)
and the rest
6 M (1931 Germany, Lang…261)
7 Goodbye Mr Chips (1939 UK, Wood…239)
8 Trouble in Paradise (1932 USA, Lubitsch…235)
9 The Informer (1935 USA, Ford…224)
10 The Story of the Late Chrysanthemums (Zangiku Monogatari) (1939 Japan, Mizoguchi…220)
11 Modern Times (1936 USA, Chaplin…215)
12 Wuthering Heights (1939 USA, Wyler…214)
13=Mr Smith Goes to Washington (1939 USA, Capra…210)
13=Les Misérables: Parts I, II & III (1934 France, Bernard…210)
15 The 39 Steps (1935 UK, Hitchcock…197)
16 La Grande Illusion (1937 France, Renoir…196)
17 All Quiet on the Western Front (1930 USA, Milestone…191)
18 Alexander Nevsky (1938 USSR, Eisenstein…172)
19 It’s a Gift (1934 USA, McLeod…169)
20 Duck Soup (1933 USA, McCarey…166)
21 King Kong (1933 USA, Cooper/Schoedsack…161)
22 Earth (Zemlya) (1930 USSR, Dovzhenko…159)
23 Angels With Dirty Faces (1938 USA, Curtiz…155)
24 The Music Box (1932 USA, Parrott…132)
25 Babes in Toyland (The March of the Wooden Soldiers) (1934 USA, Meins/Rogers…131)
I would like to thank the “28 strong” contingent that cast ballots for the 30′s poll, and hope they will stay aboard for the upcoming 40′s venture. I also would like to thank those who accessed the voting thread, made comments and conributing to the discourse without actually voting.
Kudos to Allan Fish for that magnificent picture layout and to Angelo A. D’Arminio Jr. for that impeccable performance again as voting tabulator.
The results were simply terrific by any barometer of measurement.
And I salute you, Emerald City!
The Wizard of Oz speaks to us in a number of ways. Perhaps the American institutions of ‘home,’ ‘family’ and ‘friendship’ are given fullfilling treatment. I voted it #1 on my own ballot, and I feel it will be timeless as long as movies and made and watched.
I lost count of the number of times I’ve seen it, and our kids adore it too. It’s so priceless….I voted it No. 1 of course.
Damn. I did some research and worked on compiling a preliminary list — and then forgot to vote! I think one big reason that Oz tops the list is because not only children can enjoy it but adults can appreciate its depth as well as the nostalgia factor.
I’m glad to see, however, that my #1 pick corresponds to that of those who had it together enough to vote on time.
Well, it was a predictable outcome, but though Oz is a family classic, it in no way possible belongs as no 1 film of the 1930s. Mind you, it probably deserves to be on the list more than GWTW, which, though a milestone of cinema, is now a film of great sequences rather than a great role, with one of the dullest, most boring characters in all literature and film – Ashley Wilkes – slowing the action to a crawl whenever he comes on screen. No wonder Leslie Howard only did it because Selznick let him make Intermezzo as producer in return.
And as for Babes in Toyland, give me strength! Nice to see some foreign films getting recognition, though they were never going to win with so many voters only ever watching a foreign film by sufferance, let alone voting for one.
What we have here is not the best films of the 1930s, but the favourite, and the proof that some people cannot distinguish betwixt the two. If I was picking my favourite 1930s films, I’d have three Marxes, three Fields, three Laurel and Hardys, and yet this is best. So no.
Hopefuly, for the 1940s, the same error will not be made.
Allan has raised an interesting issue: best vs. favorite.
I was always under the impression it was favorites being polled, and this explains The Wizard of Oz taking first place. But, as Allan rightly points out, Oz is hardly the best movie of the 1930s.
But how do we distinguish between best and favorite. To use a metaphor Allan will be familiar with, this is a very sticky wicket, and requires an agreed set of criteria. Otherwise, the 1940s poll will be a repeat of the 1930s result.
I nominate Allan to propose a set of guidelines for debate. For starters, I think a voter should justify each choice by referencing at least one of the agreed criteria.
Anyway my two cents…
Oh I completely, completely disagree with Allan, as to the legitimacy of THE WIZARD OF OZ winning the best film designation. Allan has a lifelong aversion to what is popular, and believes what is popular cannot be great. This is a fallacy of the highest order.
Allan has rated THE WIZARD OF OZ with five-stars in his own film book (which is his masterpiece rating) yet when people rally behind it as a result of affection and the rightful belief that it is a ‘great’ film, all of a sudden now it is not.
As one of many examples, Danny Peary in his perceptive book “Alternate Oscars” took the Best Picture Oscar away from GONE WITH THE WIND and gave it to THE WIZARD OF OZ, citing it as one of the best films of all-time, and the best film of 1939. Peary is on to something.
I personally did not vote the film #1 (but I had it high on my list).
The point is people is this:
I did not vote THE WIZARD OF OZ #5 on my list, because I considered it a ‘favorite’ film; I voted it that high because I thought it was a genuinely GREAT film. To depreive this masterpiece of this definitive designation is to fall victim to the adage that ‘popular can’t be good.’
Think again. Some of our most respected and intellectual voters though otherwise, myself included.
Likewise the slur against the excellent showing of 7 of 25 films (a superb show) being foreign-made is classic elitist Allan Fish.
I suggest you look at the individual lists themselves before making such a statement.
And the continuing hostility against BABES IN TOYLAND is disturbing.
This is a POLL, and people are encouraged to make their own choices. You are completely off-base with BABES, but I am wasting my time here.
WitD applauds the 1930′s results, and asks everyone to look at the results again. Renoir’s RULES OF THE GAME finished #4, and this is mainly because of the ‘best’ designation, not because it’s a personal favorite so to speak.
Sam, to be fair to Allan, he is not saying that “popular can’t be good”, what he is saying is that popular is not necessarily great. Take as an extreme example – Titanic.
Personally, I don’t care either way. The whole idea of lists and rankings, and ratings for that matter, is a distraction from what film appreciation should be about.
Indeed with respect Sam, you are committing the same sin you accuse Allan of, when you talk about the votes of “respected and intellectual voters” as somehow being beyond question.
I just finished watching Babes in Toyland after about 40 years. While fun and nostalgic, and a favorite of mine, I cannot see at as a serious contender for the top 25 films of the 193os.
It is fun to vote on favorites, but let us not pretend that any such list is representative or definitive.
In any event, we are still friends – I hope
The last bit is my point, no such list is anything other than arbitrary, merely fun parlour games in cyberspace.
However, The Wizard of Oz for me, though a masterwork of its type, belongs no more on a best films of the 1930s list than Star Wars in the 1970s, ET in the 1980s, etc. They’re classics yes, but I cannot consider them for truly high honours.
Wizard of Oz won because many of the votes were from people who wouldn’t see a foreign film. If you discounted the xenophobes, and took the votes from those who did include foreign cinema, the result would have been different. That’s why favourite as opposed to best is misleading. Surveys are representative of the opinions of the people who vote for them, but these people in many ways have discounted many of the films in question by refusing to watch a subtitled movie.
According to our poll, Victor Fleming was a genius, as he made the best two films of the 1930s…sorry, but a whole universe of no.
Tony, I willl have more to say later to back up my contentions. But make no mistake about it: we are great friends and will always be. Your views are most valid, but I see some others issues here, (again as I will elaborate on later, when I get a break).
I for one did not vote for my ‘favorite’ films, but for the films I considered the ‘best.’
I think this is all sour grapes, as The Wizard of Oz, as Sam contends, is widely considered one of the greatest films ever made, apart from feelings of nostalgia.
The fact that the French film The Rules of the Game finished fourth, and the Japanese film ‘Late Chrysanthemums’ finished tenth, dispels any notion that people was largely voting for films that only affected them emotionally. Those two films are hardly ones that I (or anyone else) would consider ‘nostalgic favorites.’
The results of the poll were excellent for the most part.
I am surprised about the ongoing row here. Although I did not vote “The Wizard of Oz” the best film of the 30′s, I did and do consider it “one” of the best films. This means I have no issue with it finishing No. 1 at all, in fact I would say it was the favorite to win this poll from the beginning, and for primarily one reason:
“The Wizard of Oz” is that rarest of films in that it flawlessly blends the concept of “greatest” and “favorite” in a way that’s hard to contest. I constantly see internet polls where people say the film is not only one of their personal favorites, but also one of the greatest films in terms of its artistry in film history.
As to Mr. Fish’s comments about the director Victor Fleming, who directed the top two films in the poll, I’d say that’s just the way it goes. While he is not remotely a Renoir, Chaplin or Lang, the point is he directed two of the greatest films ever and both in the same year. This isn’t a question of directors Mr. Fish, it’s about individual films, and Fleming was on top of the world twice.
Live with it.
……..too bad the results have disappointed some, as I see them as a near-perfect reflection of what the true cream of the crop of that decade offers. And I do think that seven foreign-language films getting in the top 25 is fantastic, especially since the 30′s are widely considered the ‘Hollywood Golden Age.’ I say bravo to the voters!……….
very nice results to the poll. I love The Wizard of Oz, and think it’s one of the most popular of all movies. It may not be the #1 best, but it has to be considered one of that small handful of priceless movies. I can’t fault anyone who places it at the top of the heap.
I’ll try and adrress some of the pertinent issues at hand in regards to the poll in dribs and drabs.
Tony: Let me say flat out that you are not only one of Wonders in the Dark’s most invaluable contributors by way of comments, but you are also a member of it’s writing staff. Anything you suggest must be taken seriously. In fact, the “guidelines” for the upcoming 40′s poll will be quite implict, and the introductory lead-in will evince. While ‘favorite’ and ‘best’ is often an impossible differentiation, we will do our best to clarify.
While I think that those who find issue with THE WIZARD OF OZ winning the top position have some validity, I do find that there are a number of voters who REALLY think the film is one of the greatest in a singular sense.
In any case Tony, you are quite right methinks, to say that lists should not compromise the appreciation of films. When that happens the entire enterprise is counter-productive. However I must say with great joy that the recent polling caused an epiphany of film appreciation by many who re-viewed films, borrowed DVDs, read about the decade, and were genuinely excited to see some films they had never seen. This ‘discipline’ connected to the list-making was such a wonderful thing to behold.
I dare say this polling inspired people to the greatest heights, and hope the future decade endeavors will do the same.
As to the 28 voters who participated in this poll, apart from my wife Lucille, who admits she is hardly a movie expert, and one other voter who is no fan of foreign-language cinema, the rest here are SERIOUS lovers of cinema. This does not mean they are the final word, or are unassailable experts, but they represent an impressive group of knowledgeable and passionate film lovers, who can give such a venture some marked insights.
I agree this is no definitive list. But one would be hard pressed to contest the placement of any of these 25 choices, apart from THE MARCH OF THE WOODEN SOLDIERS, which Tony rightfully points as a “stretch.” But none of the other 24 choices are really contestable, even if numerical placement is a bone of contention.
Why is everyone so preoccupied with ‘The Wizard of Oz’ finishing #1, when the rest of this top 25 is outstanding from top to bottom? The voters honored Renoir, Lang, Bernard, Chaplin, Mizoguchi, the Marx Brothers, Lubitsch, W. C. Fields, Ford, Capra, Hitchcock, Eisenstein, Dovzhenko, Wyler, Milestone, Curtiz, etc.
Since when is a Top 25 list supposed to be scrutinized for it’s top pick alone. Hey, I’d say this list is as ‘definitive’ as you’ll ever get. Damn right Sam!
Mr. Fish, Mr. D’Ambra, Sam and everyone else, I think, after looking at the results I have come to the conclusion that individual sentiments and love for “The Wizard of Oz” and “The March of the Wooden Soldiers” may well have boosted their standing in the polling. Both films are deserving, especially “The Wizard of Oz,” but I agree that they benefitted from emotions.
What you have here is a terrific list, with the few films that hit an emotional chord edging out films that didn’t. But at the end of the day they are all great films, and the numerical placement in far less important than they’re being named on the list at all.
“The Wizard of Oz” vs. “The Rules of the Game”
It’s like comparing apples and oranges. They are both great in their own way.
Still I agree with the decision here to make some specific recommendations for the 40′s voting.
Allan: I agree with your response here though you’ve never been as amenable to the idea when the shoe is on the other foot. Isn’t this precisely the point I’ve always made? The distinction between ‘classic’ and truly ‘great’ film? And Joe’s comment about apples and oranges here is exactly the response I’ve always got from you. Not putting you on the spot. Just trying to understand why certain Hawks movies are more than ‘classics’ for you and not ‘Oz’ when the entire critical establishment calls both ‘great’ when they have to in equal measure. Remember this is the point I’ve always made. It’s not apples and oranges. Beethoven is greater than the Beatles irrespective of how great the Beatles might be within popular music. But here you seem to holding on to precisely my position.
Because there’s a lot MORE to Hawks movies than there is to Oz.
The difference with you, Kaleem, is that you REFUSE to watch musicals and the like entirely. I watch the great films of all styles and rate them accordingly according to their own merits. Wizard of Oz is a ***** movie. Of its type, it’s excellent, but I prefer others films when it comes to naming best films. I love Singin’ in the Rain which will make my 50s list, but it’s not there because it’s a great musical, but because it’s also a great comedy and satire of the early talkies.
There’s a difference between turning your nose up at certain things completely – as in refusing to watch animated films or musicals like the person who inhabits your mirror – and knowing which of a certain type are great. I did include Love me Tonight in my top 25 films, and that’s a musical.
This is quite an interesting thread. I would have to disagree with those who don’t feel that “The Wizard of Oz” may not be among the greatest films of the 30′s, nor of all-time for that matter.
The film speaks to the child in all of us, and is an eternal statement of dreams, and the permanancy of all those things we hold dearest in our lives.
The performances, the music, the dialogue, the full craftsmanship of the film is worthy of the highest praise. It is no surprise that so many great critics have rated it this way for decades.
“there’s a lot more to HAWKS movies than there is to Oz”
That is your opinion and your opinion alone Mr. Fish.
No, not at all, Mr Noack. I think you’ll find a lot of serious cinephiles would take Hawks over Oz any day.
Allan: that’s a distinction without a difference. I don’t believe my genre preferences has anything to do with the general principle under discussion here. You’ve decided on your own that Oz is not great enough while those Hawks films are. But the same critical establishment comes down on the side of both being great. You’re then getting into personal thinking to pass judgment on Oz. I do the same with Hawks. There is no difference here. Whether you like musicals or not, whether I do or not is irrelevant. What defines the ‘great’ film is the question here..
I can’t help but agree with Mr. Hasan’s theories here. If the same critics say that Hawks and “The Wizard of Oz” are great, then who or what is to make the final differentiation? And the notion that what is popular is almost always not worthy is a very skaky one. I think Mr. D’Ambra used the example of “Titanic,” but “Titantic” and “The Wizard of Oz” are completely different films. The former is a hacknayed effort, with dubious artistry, while the latter is one of the greatest of all American films. There is a major difference here.
Peter: My debate with Allan has always involved using a certain theoretical approach to rate films great or not great as I see fit. Obviously many would disagree with me. I also see problems with how the system of criticism works in the field of cinema versus other artistic fields. All of this would take too long to get into. But essentially I am not stopping Allan from believing that hawks is great while Oz isn’t. What I am objecting to is the idea that if I can be called out for not considering someone great whom the critical establishment would normally nominate as such by the same token Allan is open to the same charge when he cheerfully decides Oz isn’t great enough. It seems to me that he allows himself the status of ‘arbiter’ in these matters where he does not allow me the same. And incidentally I have done far more to explain my positions before Allan than anything Allan has offered here.
But I also suspect Allan has a bit of problem on his hands. I would submit that one can separate Hawks from Renoir (for example) on grounds of sheer artistic merit (composition of shots, themes, etc.. in general ‘aesthetics’) but once you admit Hawks it is quite impossible to argue against Oz. In other words if one wants to separate art from entertainment (no matter how great) it’s one thing but once you admit the latter it becomes a much more tricky call than it otherwise would be. It’s easy enough to decide that the Beatles are greater than say Pearl Jam. It’s also easy to say that Beethoven is greater than Havergal Brian. But when you put everything together and suggest that everything can be equally great as long then you’re in a bit of a fix. Much like the one you would find yourself in if you judged Paul Schrader to be as good a writer as Sophocles, just in a different sense!
Finally, I am not obsessed with always keeping up this art/entertainment divide. At the same time we have to rely on some common notion of critical criteria because otherwise we are really indulging in meaningless abstractions.
So to each his or her own. I only question Allan because he questions me for the same. And again it’s not about what kind of cinema ones likes and so forth. All of that is immaterial. What’s important is how one defines ‘great’.
Kaleem Hasan’s “what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander” analogy is the right one.
I’m not saying all that’s popular is not good. Titanic is rubbish, granted, and much that’s popular is. Oz is a ***** movie. But it was never taken seriously by me as one of the great cinematic works of its decade. It just wasn’t. Just as E.T. another ***** movie, wouldn’t make my top 25.
My complaint with Mr Hasan was his comparing me – who rates films as great depending on their genre and when picking the absolute crème de la crème as the best films of a decade – to him – who ignores many films completely in terms of even WATCHING THEM and passes completely dismissive judgement on them accordingly.
Kaleem is the one who brought that comparison in and there’s no similarity at all.
Other people are entitled to their opinions, but Kaleem’s harange has taken the thread off course. The point was always about the result coming about because the best part of half the votes didn’t vote for any foreign language films at all and, if those voters were excluded and true cineastes only were polled, the result would probably be different. Everybody has seen Oz, hence everybody will vote for it. Bigots who don’t watch foreign cinema will not vote for certain works because of their country of origin. Hence, US films are always going to win these polls. Much as my dear friend Sam loves them, they are distorted.
I will defend to the last his right to conduct the polls, and equally defend to the last my right to laugh at the results.
Mr. Hasan, that was a hard argument to counter.
Allan’s argument that “US films are always going to win these polls” is preposterous and an insult to all the lovers of world cinema who voted on this polling. Seven foreign-language films made the final cut (top 25) during a decade that many widely consider America’s finest hour.
A French film finished #4, a German, #6, a Japanese #10 and so on. A number of the individual voters had foreign films as their #1, #2 or #3 and so on.
The results are a reflection of combined perceptions and are no different than what many around the world have settles on.
Allan: You are again going off base. I just want to know what criterion allows you to judge that Oz is not great enough or not great at all while some of those Hawks films are.
The rest of what you’re saying here is needlessly gratuitous stuff that I don’t want to respond to here except to suggest that this is a complete caricature of my position.
By the way everyone who votes for ‘Oz’ is not a bigot who hates foreign cinema (not watching foreign cinema and therefore calling Oz a great film could be an example of ignorance but hardly bigotry). There are many important critics who’ve seen a lot, who have many foreign films on their lists but also have Oz.
But again this too is not the point. My question is simple: why are you the only person who has the right to make that call? Why is everyone either an elitist like myself (always your implication) or a bigot (I suppose some others qualify)? Why are you conveniently the only person who always occupies this position of pure neutrality?!
And I didn’t make this a personal discussion at all. You are with your ill-humored responses. I had a very genuine question and I still have it because it’s one of ‘method’. I could also say that you tend to overrate Hawks completely because of a personal investment in his cinema. I could point to many many lists where Hawks is hardly mentioned. I could do a lot but I’m not doing this. All I want to know is how you make yourself the most neutral party in all of this where everyone else from critic to casual viewer is either bigot or elitist or both. If you don’t want to answer this just say so.
Sam: Exactly. And the even more preposterous assumption here is the idea that when the same groups of people vote in England or France or Germany or Japan or what have you somehow they don’t have the slightest bit of nationalism to their choices. Somehow everyone but Americans is ‘fair’ when it comes to these matters.
Of course Sam you and I have access to one of the world’s film capitals where all sorts of obscure stuff is being played from all over the world, where everything gets reviewed right away and appreciated right away. But somehow there is this image constantly perpetrated of ‘know nothing’ Americans. I think it’s deeply disappointing when such easy and crude generalizations of ‘Yankee ignorance’ are always indulged in.
In any case why do we have to get ‘nationalistic’ about these things?
I said WIN the polls, Sam, old boy, WIN THE POLLS…not 4th, 7th, 11th or whatever…and an American film WILL win each of the polls conducted from 1930s onwards…guaranteed…when such a proportion of voters only vote for American stuff simple mathematics tells you the nationality of the top film. You don’t have to be Stephen Hawking to work it out. Foreign films are handicapped before they start.
Had we taken a separate result list only from those who voted some non English language films in – ie. those who had a true grounding in the decade – and not included the others, the voting would have been different and more respectable. Who knows, Oz may STILL have scraped it, but the foreign contingent would have been higher placed for sure.
Out of the 20+ people who voted, 6 had no foreign cinema at all, another three dotted one or two in only. That’s a pretty big handicap to overcome.
I wasn’t getting nationalistic, Kaleem, but if you asked the people who voted only for American to watch a foreign film, I think they WOULD conform to that very stereotype you refer to. That’s neither here nor there, my point is already made that foreign films are handicapped from the outset. It’s their choice not to watch foreign cinema, but to completely say their refusal does not make a massive impact in the final result is myopic. When only three quarters of the voters are open to everything and the others aren’t…
Foreign films were thus competing in a race with their legs tied together. American – or British had anything been good or well known enough – cinema had no such hindrance.
Allan that’s true but that argument cuts in other directions as well. If you are soaked in important foreign (not just having seen it but seen it well and really thought about cinema as a medium of art) cinema you are less likely to consider Hawks that great (remember I sent you many many lists of important names, not just critics but also directors and so on, and Hawks hardly showed up in all of those literally scores of lists).
But let’s take this further.. isn’t it a handicap to approach cinema only impressionistically? As you choose to do? In other words the idea that a great film education simply means seeing everything. But what of the rest? Reading the great theoreticians of the medium, the important studies and so forth. Just as we do not say we are well schooled in art only if we tour all the great museums of the world!
I am not arguing against your preference but it seems to me that yet again the ‘knowledge’ argument is being used very selectively. If a person is superior to another in terms of his or her lists because of greater exposure to different so is another person to this latter for being able to describe the entire shot selection of a director versus another.
Yes, but if you spend so much time reading theoreticians that you don’t look at as much as possible that needs seeing, you may be giving yourself a great view of St Peter’s, as it were, but you deny yourself the Pantheon and so many other delights. When we’re talking about best films, or best anything, the opinion is more reliable, the lrge the net youc an cast over contenders.
As for Hawks, to a degree I admit it’s a personal thing, nuch as Kurosawa and Antonioni can do no wrong for you. There’s nothing wrong with that, both those directors are masters I have a great deal of respect for, but I prefer other Italian and Japanese directors. I love Hawks, many other critics do, and worthwhile ones. Yet because he dealt within the Hollywood system he’s looked down upon by certain intelelctual movements. Yet in France, in the UK, and in much of the US, he is lionised.
I agree, it’s personal selection, but like I said, I don’t want to get into a serious argument about this – we’ve covered this ground before and the grass will never grow there again – but my main point is about the handicapped nature of foreign films. With literally anyone being allowed a vote, foreign cinema is like a Paralympic sprinter suddenly faced by Usain Bolt. It’s a foregone conclusion. I love the xceitement Sam gets about these polls, and I think the world of him for it and wouldn’t have it any other way, but he wouldn’t have me any other way, and deep down he knows I’m right about that one point. No foreign film will win a poll from the 1940s to 2000s. The only one that has a chance is Cinema Paradiso in the 1980s, but again, though it’s a very, very fine film, Paradiso is that foreign fiolm that everyone has seen.
Allan: I don’t disagree with you on the foreign film point. All I’m suggesting is that this sort of vigilance has to be exercised all round. Not only selectively.
For example (and as I’ve often stated before) foreign films are in any case under-represented even for the most well exposed cine lovers. Why? Because the world watches far more commercial cinema from the US than from all the other nations put together. In other words Hollywood forms the common template. We only watch the best cinema when it comes to other countries. But with the US we are able to see a lot that is good without being great. This creates an imbalance at the very beginning. I could name a 100 Indian films that most people are not likely to see in their lifetimes that qualify as good and interesting but not great (though some might be). One could do this for other countries as well. The imbalance though cannot be addressed.
Which is incidentally why the concept of a list is no more than a snapshot of critical trends and popular fashions and so forth. There can be no list which is completely adequate because unlike say literature (today, but this wasn’t always the case) where one is less likely to miss out of really great works in other traditions the same does not hold for cinema for all sorts of logistical reasons.
So if you made a list of great films my sense would be: yeah but he’s not seen so many important films from India. From China. So on and so forth. And this isn’t even a question of lost archives. We have lost hundreds of plays from ancient Greece. there’s no way of judging them. But with cinema the films exist. I have been watching Indian films. Someone from China has seen whatever classic films are available. So on and so forth.
But why is it a reductio ad absurdum deal for you Allan? Why is it this either/or deal? So that one either watches cinema or one reads about it. There’s nothing in between!
Of course there’s another false opposition here. What if I told the art historian or art scholar who specialized in Renaissance art ‘hey you might understand art better than I do but I’ve seen more paintings from different periods than you have so we’re somehow equal’!
The question is: does one simply understand anything better in any artistic field by repeated exposure or does one also have to learn things about the field at some time? If I just kept staring at all the great architectural marvels of the world would I suddenly be as well versed in these matters as someone who’d trained in the same?
Let’s take the artists themselves. Had Beethoven heard everything that was worth hearing? Many scholars or ‘experts’ today have heard far more Bach (and so on) than he ever did? So is his understanding of music wanting for that reason?
‘Everything’ is not a criterion for the proper understanding of any art. A minimal ‘something’ is necessary. No doubts here. But not ‘everything’. Because this last is just an abstraction.
I disagree with Allan when he says that “no foeign film will win the upcoming polls.”
Previous network polling has confirmed that in the 40′s De Sica’s BICYCLE THIEVES came very close to finishing #1, meaning that will a more-foreign-attuned voting membership, the film is fair game to finish first.
Likewise in the 50′s you have some Bergman, Bresson and others who placed very high in a previous poll.
In the 60′s Bresson’s BALTHEZAR and Bergman’s PERSONA as well as some Bunuel, Truffaut and Fellini finished close to the top.
The same is true of the next three decades.
Foreign cinema is embraced by over 50% of the voters en masse, so I’d wager even odds on a surprise.
I’d love to be proved wrong…the irony is that in the 1940s I may not have a foreign language film tops, but in the 50s and 60s there will be, and they’;ll dominate the 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s, too.
With the majority of the voters seemingly fond of foreign films, I am confident of my prediction.
OK, let battle be commenced. If I am proved right, then you buy me a Criterion DVD of my choice from the month of the final poll. If you, then I will do the same.
You have a deal.
Now, Kaleem…
He states…
“Let’s take the artists themselves. Had Beethoven heard everything that was worth hearing? Many scholars or ‘experts’ today have heard far more Bach (and so on) than he ever did? So is his understanding of music wanting for that reason?”
That’s irrelevant, Kaleem, as Beethoven was an artist, not a critic. We voting here are not artists. Their time is taken up with the creation of great works, not the listening to.
My philosophy is with regard to a poll of best of anything, it stands to reason that a knowledge of and appreciation of as many contenders as possible is an advantage over, say, someone asked to vote in a best sportsman poll who only ever watched baseball or basketball and when you mention Rocky Marciano, Pele, Steve Redgrave, Roger Federer, Donald George Bradman or the like to them and they haven’t a clue.
The more broad one’s pool of resources, the more balanced view. One cannot vote on such a thing objectively having not seen so much and, in certain cases, deliberately avoided seeing.
In terms of criticism, it can be different, people can specialise in certain genres, fields, directors, etc. But the task at hand here is in picking BEST FILMS of a given decade. It stands to reason, the more you have seen, the less you haven’t seen, the more helpful it is.
I think what we are seeing here is the price one has to pay for popularity. While “The Wizard of Oz” is unquestionably one of the greatest of films y any standard we set upon it, we have a natural tendency towards “resentment.” Most people believe that anything this beloved must surely miss the mark. Many films and works of art (as Mr. Hasan contends) are impossible to deride, yet when one speaks in the popular vein, one is often wrong in assuming that certain things can’t live up to their reputations.
This poll result is sadly one of those instances. I did not vote t film on top, but I have no problem at all with it’s being called such. It is one of the greatest films of all-time.
Allan: But it’s not about time (which is why being an artist is relevant to the debate).. it’s about understanding.. you see a correlation between seeing as many movies as possible and developing a great understanding of the medium. I see no such thing. Just as listening to all the music in the world doesn’t exactly render one an expertise in understanding how symphonies are structured!
John, thanks for stopping by and adding to the discussion. There are no rules by which to govern a poll, other than to allow each individual to ascribe their value judgement to it. If the 28 voters (yourself included) were some kind of novices with little knowledge of film, the results would be suspect. But when about 24 of of the 28 are fanataical film lovers (DVD store clerks, film-loving educators, film critics and the like, you are sure to get an excellent result, even if all the choices are not to everyone’s liking.
No, but reading about a critic’s view of a film is not as important as seeing the film firsthand. I get the feeling that if we had three hours left on earth and the choice was between watching a new film or reading someone wax lyrical about your favourite director, you’d read instead. That’s giving the critic more power than the filmmaker, and though I read criticism, my first priority will always be to watch films. I read about them, yes, but not at the expense of watching them.
And of course the other question here is: what constitutes ‘seeing’? I have seen so many films that I have no real memory of. I have seen others where I just remember the films in very cursory fashion and sort of remember how much I liked these or not. How can I juxtapose such memory with those films I know inside out and rate all of them on the same poll?
I am not trying to create complications here. All I’m suggesting is that your objection is a valid one but so are these others. Which is why lists are always problematic.
I totally subscribe to the idea that a broad based knowledge is better than not but one can go to extremes with this idea. It is not advisable to read only criticism or theory and not access the work of art in a direct sense. It is equally not advisable to consider the direct access everything.
Either way the gaps are revealed. You might think that putting Oz on top reveals a lack of familiarity with various foreign films. I might consider putting Hawks on top to constitute a lack of understanding even if one has seen a lot. So it all depends on where one is coming from. And again I agree with your objections. I just find them too circumscribed by ‘personal experience’ if you will. Why not entertain these other objections as well?!
Wondersinthedark: But no one’s suggesting that! However there does come a point when one has to educate oneself also and that education does not only come by way of viewing films. Much as simply staring at every Rembrandt all day long will not make me understand why he is such a great painter!
No critic or scholar worth his or her salt simply reads on art without also accessing art works. The question is simply this: is it better to watch say 20 Fords and also read about him, about cinema in general, than ignore the latter and watch all 50 Fords (or whatever it is). I think the confusion here is between ‘experiencing’ an art work and ‘understanding’ it. These are not the same. If a poll is about the former then Oz being on top is not strange. If it’s about the latter than Allan’s point (and mine in a different vein) becomes more comprehensible.
I don’t consider the direct access everything, just that watching films comes before reading about them. I don’t watch stuff entirely. I have more than enough time to watch, write and read about, but when the choice one night is to watch something new or do a bit of back-reading about a style or director, then the film comes first. Reading tomorrow.
As for the point about seeing, some films are somewhat misty in the memory, but the ones that are truly great remain burned into the cornea and encourage repeated visits. But these do not get in the way of viewing new things. I currently have no DVD backlog to view. I have seen everything I have, and in these times, more frequent than you might think, I have time to catch up with repeat viewings, reading, writing, etc. It can be done.
Kaleem says:
“You might think that putting Oz on top reveals a lack of familiarity with various foreign films…..”
That is a MAJOR point that Kaleem wisely broaches here. The people who were responsible for allowing THE WIZARD OF OZ to finish #1, were the same voters who had THE RULES OF THE GAME, M, THE STORY OF THE LATE CHRYSANTHEMUMS and LA GRANDE ILLSUION among others in their top 10.
That speaks for itself.
No, Sam, what got Wizard to no 1 was the 6 or 7 people who didn’t vote for anything non English language. Take those out, deal with the REAL lists from connoisseurs, not mere casual viewers, and it would have been different. That’s simple mathematics.
I would like to ask a question here.
WHO has the right to decide what is “art” and what isn’t? Is the fact that ‘The Wizard of Oz’ is a family film/children’s film/musical fantasy or what have you, make it “less important” in the general scheme of things?
This is elitism, and I condemn it. This was about as perfectly-made a film as has ever been crafted.
The 6 or 7 people who you say didn’t vote for any foreign language films are non-existant. Only one voter, tabulator Angelo A. D’Arminio Jr. did not vote for any foreign film. Besides “The Wizard of Oz” won handily, and after just looking again at teh lists, it was victorious because it was embraced by the foreign-film crowd.
Frederick:
You are to be commended for asking that question. The answer is simple. NO ONE has that right.
I see this discussion has come full circle, since I made my contribution this morning. Mr. Kaleem Hasan has made some amazing and fascinating points, and I am honestly still processing them. Allan Fish also makes sense from his own point-of-view, but I think it shows genre bias. Few people or serious critics would argue the greatness of ‘The Wizard of Oz,’ and to say that others films from that period are hands-down better is a statement without any kind of merit.
Well said Frank. Yes Kaleem Hasan has been spectacular today. He is a brilliant man.
all of you did a great job with the poll, and I offer my congratulations. The results were outstanding.
I am surprised my slumber was not disturbed by these thunderous trans-Atlantic broadsides.
I suggest everyone get off his high-horse and calm down.
Allan has been unfairly pilloried for raising an issue that is worthy of thoughtful discussion. Perhaps he could have been more temperate in arguing his case. Kaleem as usual took the opportunity to jump onto his pseudo-intellectual soapbox and muddy the waters completely. Sam has been extremely defensive and the others, well, have generally missed the point. But I love you all still.
Allan’s essential point remains valid. The value of a vote all things being equal is directly related to not only to the number of films the voter has seen but also the depth and breadth of world cinema represented in those films.
Tony: Then you’ve straight away discredited a fair number of people who’ve not seen many foreign films. Wonder if they’d call you ‘elitist’!
“The value of a vote all things being equal is directly related to not only to the number of films the voter has seen but also the depth and breadth of world cinema represented in those films.”
So all things being equal if you listed the top 25 works of classical music and if these happened to suggest great range it follows that your understanding of music would not be inferior to that of Seiji Ozawa’s?
All things are NEVER equal. That’s the point. You are invalidating certain lists here based on these criteria. But what if others had other standards to eliminate other lists. What if I said: someone who cannot differentiate between Eisenstein’s theory of cinema and Rivette’s actually doesn’t know much about the medium?! What if I suggested: someone who cannot explain everything from ‘classic Hollywood style’ to ‘incorrect dissolves’ to ‘color filters’ and ‘apertures’ and ‘processing agents’ (all of which contribute to the way visuals are designed and so forth) really doesn’t know much about cinema?! These would then be my criteria. You would call me elitist. I would term is education. And the people who you’ve excluded for the sin of not having the breath and depth as you choose to define it would in turn call you elitist!
Incidentally it’s not about muddying the waters. It’s about excluding others for no good reason. One can have strong views on cinema or anything else but these have to be consistent. You can’t just say that standards are the best because they’re ‘yours’! Someone else has to subscribe to them. It is an odd thing that you choose not to argue with me on the merits or demerits of the actual points and respond with abstractions (‘he muddies the waters’!). Is it possible that someone who wants to think about how exactly Picasso created his great Cubist effects is actually not being ‘elitist’ and is interested in the medium? Is it possible that someone who tries to figure out Shakespeare’s pentameter is also trying to read Shakespeare more deeply?
Allan: I’m sure you appreciate the irony here. You’re getting exactly the responses here in some instances that you have always aimed at me! This is why one shouldn’t get into the labels. Because anyone can throw them around.
By the standards being thrown about here (watch EVERYTHING, it can be done because one can use all of one’s waking hours to do so! And while one is at it one can use every last dime one has arranging for the films!) we can automatically dismiss your contributions to those music polls Sam conducted (hey how much have you really heard). If there were a poll on great books or art of whatever we could equally reject your contributions!
Ironically my standard is a more egalitarian one. Anyone can choose to become more engaged with an artistic medium by way of reading or more viewing of films or whatever the appropriate combo is. No one is excluded. But if the goal is that one should have seen ‘everything’ (let’s be honest Allan, much as I admire your single minded passion in this matter 99% of people wouldn’t be able to emulate you in any way!) very few would be able to achieve anything.
It’s like this. I might be familiar with only ten paintings but I might have really learnt something about painting with these few ‘samples’. On the other hand I might have ‘seen’ 200 but gained no greater understanding into art beyond the merely impressionistic.
No poll is really fair in that sense. Even important critics have often not seen very much.
Of course I forgot another all important criterion in which Sam would easily beat everyone else here. No critic, no one associated with the medium of cinema in any serious capacity would accept home viewing of films as the equivalent of cinematic viewing. What if as many would suggest the experience of cinema is completely altered going from the movie screen (for which films are made) to even the best Hi-Def TV or the best Blu-Ray? So if Sam has seen 100 films in the theater and I’ve seen 200 but I’ve only seen 25 of those in the theater is my experience of cinema really better than his based merely on number?!
Frank: thanks very much..
Kaleem, this is what I mean about muddying the waters. You establish a false premise and then unleash a torrent of rhetoric that is totally beside the point.
Firstly, let me remind you of what I said very early on in this thread: “The whole idea of lists and rankings, and ratings for that matter, is a distraction from what film appreciation should be about.”
Secondly, you have missed my point completely. As a great theoretician, you know that ‘ceterus paribus’ is essential to any intellectual discourse. I am not being elitist. I am stating a simple hypothesis that the more a person knows about a subject, ceterus paribus, the more value I will place on that person’s opinion. This what you should be arguing.
Tony: That is EXACTLY what I’ve been arguing! The difference is that I don’t equate the simple perusal of films with complete cinematic knowledge. Watching as many films as one can is great. It’s something I try to practice myself! But this cannot be the only component if one is trying to be a good student of cinema. I
I heard you loud and clear but I precisely disputed the idea that one knows more because one has seen more. And even this was in a response to Allan’s original position. It didn’t come out of the blue. Every single thing I’ve said here is connected.
Again I prefer not to argue statements like ‘it’s just rhetoric’ or ‘you’re muddying the waters’. One could trade in these but one wouldn’t get anywhere. One must stick to substantive matters if you will.
As a matter of fact I too appreciate Allan’s knowledge when it comes to many questions about cinema. I ask him questions all the time. But I do not necessarily defer to him when it is a matter of other kinds of cinematic appreciation. It’s a question of what notion of knowledge is being implicated. if it’s about asking what director made what film when I might ask him, I might ask him what he thought of that film since he’s most likely seen it. I am not very likely however to ask him whether he considers cinema a medium that suits the long take more or short cuts. Because this implies a level of theoretical understanding (knowledge!) that he is not very interested in. What’s the point here? Why should only the first ‘encyclopedic’ notion of knowledge come up when one talks about lists or anything else? Why not the other kind as well? Specially if one is going to call out someone for citing Oz?
If I do have a weakness in these discussions it is that I like to be specific and, without trying to sound pompous or pedantic about it, rigorous. This means being comprehensive and not taking anything for granted in a definitional sense.
By the way why are we inviting everyone to these polls if we’re going to say later that some just don’t have the ‘chops’ when it comes to nominating the right films?! I don’t believe that’s right. If one wants these criteria in place the time to do this is before the poll. In any case ‘who’ decides what is worthy or being on top or not? Allan finds Oz a weird choice. I found his Hawks selection equally weird. So who gets to decide what’s really weird?! This is where the whole thing started. Everything else is related to this as should be obvious to anyone reading the thread.
Tony, I don’t believe you argue against my points as much as you protest my stylistic choices.
Great Kaleem. You finally acknowledged you think you are perfect: you posit your only weakness as a virtue, viz. that you are ‘specific’ and ‘rigorous’. I prefer ‘pompous or pedantic’.
And again you have gone off on a tangent.
I am having fun – I hope you are – let’s try for a world record on this thread.
And Kaleem try not to be so earnest. The Western intellectual edifice will not collapse because of this storm in a teacup.
Tony: Oh I have countless weaknesses.. one is pursuing an argument earnestly and politely even when I get insults in return!
Sorry Kaleem if you feel insulted. But in all honesty that is how you come across. One of my many weaknesses is I call a spade a spade when maybe I should be more diplomatic.
Perhaps it was a lame attempt at levity on my part, but you really need to lighten up and not be so cocksure about your opinions, and I say this as a friend not an adversary.
The way I see it, Wizard of Oz transcends its genre. In my book — and many others’ — that’s the mark of a great film.
I wish to take another tack, and look at the cinema of one country; France
in the 1930s.
NY film scholar William Wolf, in 1979, co-wrote with his wife, the book,
Landmark Films (Paddington Press, NY). In a chapter titled The Great French
Cinema on La Grande Illusion (1937), introduces his study of that film as
follows (my emphasis):
"Jean Renoir’s masterpiece, La Grande Illusion, the work of a genius of cinema,
vividly epitomizes the achievements of a noble period in the history of film.
Audiences becoming attuned to the idea of film as art were deeply affected by
the level of maturity of the great French films of the thirties. Depth of
character, concern with basic problems of life, and truthful portrayal of the
human condition made these films much more vital than the finest Hollywood product. La Grande Illusion not only represents this heritage but is the best antiwar film ever made."
Wolf then goes on to discuss other ‘great’ French films of the 1930s, including:
La Chienne (1931)
La Bête Humaine (1938)
La Règle du jeu (1939)
L’Age d’Or (1930)
Sous les Toits de Paris (1930)
Le Million (1931)
A Nous la Liberte (1931)
Le Dernier Milliardaire (1934)
L’Atalante (1934)
Marius (1931)
Fanny (1932)
César (1936)
Le Quai des Brumes (1938)
Un Carnet de Bal (1937)
La Fin du Jour (1939)
Le Kermesse Heroique (1935)
Le Sang d’un Poète (1930)
How many of these films appear in the votes registered?
Tony:
In response to your question, six of those films did make the ballots of those who voted, with LA REGLE DU JEU finishing #4 in the overall voting of course. Several others were named on multiple ballots. Those named were:
La Chiene
Le Bete Humaine
La Regle du Jou
L’Age d’Or
L’Atalante
Le Quai des Brumes
Of course, had we conducted a poll of the “Best FRENCH films of the 1930′s, rather than a consideration of the 25 best of worldwide cinema, I would venture to believe more from that group would have made it. Wolf’s listing is comprehensive.
Thanks Sam. Only one film garnered sufficient votes to make the cut. I think there is sufficient evidence to say that the 1930s poll result is generally a list of favorites with a strong parochial bias.
I will leave it at that. I am sorry if I have caused anyone hurt or offence in my posts, but I was only trying to support a view that is firmly grounded and was unfairly targeted as elitist. Goodnight and good luck…
Tony, you have not caused anyone harm or offense at all, and I applaud you for fully supporting a valid view.
As I stated in an earlier post, I do believe the 1930′s is probably the strongest decade in movie history for American cinema, hence it is no surprise that American films won 17 of the 25 top spots (Britain took one spot for THE 39 STEPS). Actually, French cinema captured three spots in the Top 25 with Renoir’s LA GRANDE ILLUSION and Bernard’s LES MISERABLES capturing high positions. Wolf had neglected to state the obvious with naming LA GRANDE ILLUSION, which is of course is one of the most beloved of films, and LES MISERABLES wasn’t mentioned by him at all as it had languished in relative obscurity due to its never being released on any kind of video until recently.
I honestly don’t feel that any of the other films Wolf mentioned, all of which I have seen except for LE DARNIER, would be deserving of a Top 25 mention except for L’Atalante, which barely missed, finishing at No. 27 I believe.
Again, your view is as legitimate and enlightening as any other posed on this amazing thread, and hey, if you can’t voice your opinion here, where could you. I thank you for being open on these matters. We need more of that here.
Before Allan rightfully points out a mistake here, I would like to correct it. GOODBYE, MR. CHIPS (1939), which finished #7 in the poll, is actually a British film, not an American one. Also, two Russian films, ALEXANDER NEVSKY and EARTH made the final cut, a point I mistakenly did not broach.
Therefore, for those interested here is the country rundown of the 25 films that made the cut:
USA 16
France 3
Britain 2
Russia 2
Germany 1
Japan 1
Is that a fair rrepresentation, considering American dominance in the 30′s? I am really not sure. The results (again) are NOT definitive in any way, but they do represent a microcosm of opinion among a very knowledgeable group of film lovers.
I do look forward to the 40′s poll, to make some interesting comparisons.
I admit I am a “list” nut. Have always been! LOL!!!!
I second what Sam says about Mr. D’Ambra ‘not causing any kind of insult or harm,’ and I have enjoyed his reviews for this site.
However, I must take issue with Mr. Wolf’s statement above, as not even the best French critics like Sadoul or Bazin have supported it. The French have always themselves believed that American cinema was at its height in the 30′s and likewise have been The Wizard of Oz’s biggest international adherents. Wolf would have you believe for example that a bloated film like Le Kermesse Heroique is better than Chaplin’s City Lights or Milestone’s All Quiet on the Western Front?!? French cinema in the 30′s is nowhere near American cinema.
France was not the force in the 30′s that Wolf would have you believe. In addition to the French critics, Pauline Kael herself has argued as much, (as she is a big fan of French cinema.)
French cinema is far more prominent in the 40′s, 50′s, 60′s and 70′s.
That’s my own two cents.
Frank, thanks for your views.
I would venture to say that in partial defense of Mr. Wolf, French cinema in the 30′s really came down to one person, who happens to be one of the greatest directors in the entire history of the cinema: JEAN RENOIR.
When Renoir is part of the mix, it is understandable to celebrate French cinema in that period. But when you subtract Renoir from the equation, the full output is still impressive, but hardly remarkable.
I am wondering what will be said of the 40′s, as there is one country that rivals the USA in its stellar output….in fact I would say their cinema during that decade at least EQUALS the US………and that country of course is GREAT BRITAIN, the good old home of our esteemed Allan Fish.
Why is Mr. D’Ambra saying that only “one” French film made the “final cut” when in actuality “three” did. (“La Grande Illusion,” “The Rules of the Game,” and “Les Miserables.”)?
And is this thread about whether “Oz” should have finished Number 1, or the accurate gaging of foreign language films in the top grouping?
Bill, I already made that clarification above. Again I applaud Mr. D’Ambra for his scholarly input into this thread and to this site both by way of his extraordinary reviews and incomparable comments. WitD would be shut down without him.
As far as what you ask, this thread is for anything you would like to talk about. It appears that the two issues you broach are the ones that have dominated discussion, and we’ve had a rollicking time here sharing our views.
Pierre, I appreciate your input immensely, and value your opinions as much as the best people out there.
Tony: I am not offended at all. But I too am calling a spade a spade when I define an insult as one! I would also submit that there’s a difference between being very frank and being insulting!
On being ‘cocksure’ I would have to disagree here too. But I think the way to address this issue is to argue on the points as opposed to introducing these other ‘remarks’!
I have enjoyed engaging with you. There are no issues from my side. I am guilty of not ‘lightening up’. This much I admit!
“Depth of
character, concern with basic problems of life, and truthful portrayal of the
human condition made these films much more vital than the finest Hollywood
product”
I am glad you quoted this Tony. It is precisely this sort of sentiment (as Sam will attest to) that I have expressed many times when comparing foreign cinema with Hollywood and precisely what Allan used to react very negatively to. Hence the discussion above!
And once again Tony I am the person who’s been prone to making this sort of statement and has been regularly attacked as ‘elitist’ for doing so. I was therefore playing the devil’s advocate here as it seemed to me that someone who had called me ‘elitist’ many times was allowing himself enough room to do the same.
But the second part of it was a different objection. I just don’t think (irrespective of where I stand on this matter) that it’s very kind to first have people participate in a poll and then suggest that half the results are not valid because people haven’t seen a great deal of foreign cinema. Even if one were to agree with this idea it is simply not ‘nice’ to do it this way.
Likewise, Kaleem, I agree with Tony when he says that I was being “defensive” of the results. I felt I needed to, after Allan had raised some issues that compromised the results. I felt someone at WitD had to defend the polling, especially since I was the prime promoter of the poll from the outset.
But hey, I think we all did a great job here, and Tony, Kaleem, Allan, Pierre, Frank Gallo, Bill, Bobby and the others really joined together for a terrific thread.
WotD is coming of age, and the 40′s poll is sure to be another hum-dinger.
I also agree that Wolf’s statement (quoted by Tony) has to be taken seriously, even if the French themselves don’t quite appreciate this. I am a lifelong French film fanatic (who has more than once been told I overstate my case) but I’ll admit my favorite French directors outside of the legendary Renoir, all did their work in the 40′s and after (as alluded to by Frank in his earlier e mail) and even before (Gance, Feyder etc.)
My absolute favorites are Bresson (his BALTHAZAR is my #1 film of the 60′s) Renoir, Gance, Ophuls, Vigo, Resnais, Cocteau, Carne, Truffaut, Bernard, Malle, Melville, Chabrol and Cluzot.
Only Renoir and Bernard worked in the 30′s.
Hence Kaleem, I must reject Wolf’s statement as it applies to 30′s cinema, since the evidence by way of both output and quality doesn’t support this. It works better in the other decades that Frank cited.
In the 30′s you have a number of socially conscious films made in Hollywood that eclipse the French output and anyone else’s for that matter.
And I am the last person on earth who would defend Hollywood. I just think it’s fair to acknowlege the one decade where they did more than any other country.
Sam, that is the point I was trying to make. I don’t personally know all the voters you recruited for this project, but I would be inclined to believe that many of them really believed the majority of the best films were made in the US in the 1930′s. France had some great stuff, but the issue here is ‘total output.’ Yeah there were a few French films that are among the greatest ever made, but there were more made in America. Like you, I am no admirer of the Hollywood system, but to try and downplay the one time in movie history when they led the way, I think that is wrong.
Frank, let’s say this much: Tony D’Ambra’s argument is an EXCELLENT one. There is just as much evidence on his side as there is on the other.
It’s a matter of perceptions and values here. I don’t think we[‘ll ever have a right answer, just several positions that are quite persuasive.
You guys are still at it?
Amazing.
I must state flatly that I do not agree with Mr. Ambra’s “sufficient evidence” statement, with all due respect. The poll results did not favor American films, rather American films happened to have the strongest claim to this time period. Are we all supposed to vote against American films, even if they are generally the best of this 10 year span? It doesn’t make any sense.
The evidence clearly supports the results for the most part, but I agree with Sam that no list can really be called definitive.
Oh boy.
Thanks John for that opinion.
I do think we’ve established a kind of cinematic truce in regards to this argument. Both positions have merit.
A bit untrue though, Sam, to say only Renoir and Bernard were around in the 30s – Carné, Duvivier, Clair, Pagnol and various others were at their peak in the 1930s.
Quite right Allan, but that is besides the point as far as my argument is concerned.
I find it ironic that here I am defending the integrity of a poll and of Hollywood, when I am as big a proponent of French cinema as the most fervant of them.
Allan, remind me if I’m missing someone but I think the three best directors of the 30s globally are Renoir, Mizoguchi, Ozu, looking at not just great names but also body of work produced in that decade. If I had to pick only one here I’d go with Renoir. I don’t believe the two directors can match Renoir in his richest decade.
That is not quite right Kaleem.
You left out one MAJOR figure.
Charles Chaplin.
He probably made his two greatest films ever during that decade.
But otherwise you are right on the mark.
No, for the 1930s, Renoir would be tops…Sam split hairs on Chaplin, but to be honest, you can add more – Lubitsch, Capra, Lang…Renoir would win, then Mizoguchi, and then Hitchcock…
Allan, I never said that Renoir was not the #1 guy of this period. In fact he is the top figure easily! Kaleem was just compiling a short-list, which Chaplin belongs on with the others in view of his two supreme masterpieces.
Foe me:
1. Renoir
2. Chaplin
3. Mizoguchi
4. Hitchcock
5. Lang/Lubitsch/Capra
Yes, but Chaplin made just two films in the entire decade. Hardly a body of work. But typical of you in trying to cheat by having a tie for 5th…
First of all, we are miles apart on Chaplin. Yeah he just made two films, namely, CITY LIGHTS (1930) and MODERN TIMES (1936) two of the greatest masterpieces in the entire history of the cinema. Few directors can claim as much in their careers, much less in a single decade.
I really didn’t have a tie for Number 5. What I was saying there was that I couldn’t do a numerical listing for those three, and their quality output was about the same.
Kaleem, where art thou? You ask a question and then disappear. LOL!
Quite right Sam. To have two of that caliber in a single decade is a qualified triumph, to be compared with the greatest achievements.
Thanks Frank. I do feel that way.
Sam: Here I am! Thanks for those names Allan. Can’t believe I forgot some of those! Sam, I guess I am more with Allan here. I certainly forgot about Chaplin but it seems to me that these other directors were making films consistently in that decade. You do have a point about those films being so seminal.
Allan, I’m surprised you don’t have Ozu in that five!
ok my bad.. I guess you’re not really leaving out Ozu, that’s Sam’s list.. Sam the question then goes to you..
Well, yes, I Was Born But and An Inn in Tokyo were minor masterworks, and A Story of Floating Weeds, Passing Fancy and The Only Son were excellent, too.
Of course Lang himself had Mabuse and M in the 30s along with You Only Live Once.
And Ford had Young Mr Lincoln, Stagecoach beside some other solid work.
The list can be expanded if one isn’t only talking about absolute masterpieces I guess. The chaplin problem is admittedly a vexing one. Renoir has so much in the 30s and he has seminal films within that group, merely very good ones, lesser interesting works. Chaplin has two legendary works but just those. There’s something to be said for a wider body of work because it’s harder to be consistent across many films. But then Chaplin was fine at every point! I love for example his later Limelight and Monsieur Verdoux.
Kaleem, as you know I am a fanatical adherent of Ozu, but I agree with Allan that the 30′s are not his greatest decade, although you could make a strong case.
However he is a supreme ruler in the 50′s.
I’m glad you brought up that LIMELIGHT and MONSIEUR VERDOUX as a continuance there Kaleem.
Let’s both remember that Chaplin was (like Dreyer and Bresson) a perfectionist and worked very very slow. The fact that he was able to give the world two of its greatest films within six years is by any barometer of measurement a singular achievement.
The 50s would be very hard to decide in the same way Sam, so much out there. But pound for pound I probably enjoy the best of Japanese cinema (at least before their own new wave which I don’t have much of a taste for) more than anything else. They’re just the strongest narrators.
Sam, that’s fair, if a guy was making masterpieces before and after he’d probably have more of them if he had produced more stuff in the 30s. Oh alright, we’ll allow the Chaplin exception!
All of Japan’s five canonical masters – Mizoguchi, Ozu, Kurosawa, Naruse and Kinoshita – all made their best work in the 1950s, so agreed. But let’s not go down this alley, save that for the 1950s thread down the line.
Oh I completely agree with you on both points Kaleem. The Japanese are indeed the “greatest narrators” of that period, and if we had to break up the 50′s, we’d need to acknowledge Bergman, Fellini, Bresson, Bunuel, Truffaut, and others right alongside the Japanese.
Allan, although I look forward to that eventual 50′s thread, I see no harm in jogging our taste buds in advance.
Jogging doesn’t enter into it, it rather becomes a marathon session. We could end up discussing every decade on the first thread. Let’s not get repetitive…
Lighten up! this is fun…………….
And just think you guys, it all started when the choice of “The Wizard of Oz” as the greatest film of the 1930′s was contested. You’ve come a long way.
You know, I have to laugh at many of the comments here. I love many foreign films in the 30′s, yet I chose to place “The Wizard of Oz” at the top of my list (#1) There are some here who are now suggesting that my choice isn’t “valid” because I chose a “favorite” and not a “great” film. This is untrue. I voted “The Wizard of Oz” tops, because I thought it was the greatest film. Period.
I am not a kid or movie novice. I love film, I am in my early 60′s, and I hold two master’s degrees and a PhD in psychology.
Hi! Sam Juliano and Allan Fish,
What a very interesting poll that covered 25 “Classic” films from the 1930s. I can’t hardly wait until the 1940s poll.
Sam Juliano said,”I admit I am a “list” nut. Have always been! LOL!!!!”
S.J., Like you, I am also “crazy” about compiling list too. Because as I “retype” haha!…this comment, I am also in the process of compiling 2 lists one for T.S. and another one for Shawn. (Deadpan)
Btw, S.J., Did you know that your favorite “childhood” film Babes in Toyland isn’t listed in the National Film Registry yet?…Well, I plan to rectify that by including it on my list of 25-50 films that should be inducted into the National Film Registry later this evening. (and submit it to T.S.)
I must admit that I am still in “shock” that neither character portrayed by Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce (Holmes and Watson) and based on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s novel(s) “Sherlock Holmes” are not registar with the National Film Registry yet and you know how much I like Sherlock Holmes.
Which remind me…I have to ask T.S., why the NFR is so very important!…I guess to “preserve” these wonderful films (Which includes the ones on your 1930s 40s 50s etc…list) for future generations to enjoy.
dcd;)
ps.Wow! when I tried to leave a comment the comments where at 77 …Wow!…now look at the number!
Bobby, excellent point there. This is the proper place to vent to, as we are trying for the Guiness World Book of Records in total comments.
Everything is cool though. All parties are calm and satisfied.
True what you say there Frank.
As the one person who did not list any foreign film in my 1930′s submission, let me say …….
People….. These polls are supposed to be fun.
There are a few people on this site who think it is suppose to be a study in post-graduate cinema.
I applaud the members that have an obvious vast knowledge in cinema and I enjoy reading the reviews and comments.
Allan has put together a priceless study in movie reviews and I thouroghly enjoyed reading his “awards” especially since he recognized my personal favorite, Claude Rains, for one of his great performances. That is more recognition than he received from the popularity contest conducted every year by the Motion Picture Academy.
I just don’t like foreign films. I have seen 12 or 15 in my life and there are a few I enjoyed. To be fair, I did not start going to see foreign films until the 90′s (Sam did drag me to a few) and by then my eyesight made reading the subtitles difficult and unenjoyable.
I know there are at least 2 foreign films that will make my list in future decade polls and one of them will even be french….. DAMN.
Hi! Sam Juliano and Allan Fish,
What a very interesting poll that covered 25 “Classic” films from the 1930s. I can’t hardly wait until the 1940s poll.
Sam Juliano said,”I admit I am a “list” nut. Have always been! LOL!!!!”
S.J., Like you, I am also “crazy” about compiling list too. Because as I “retype” haha!…this comment, I am also in the process of compiling 2 lists one for T.S. and another one for Shawn. (Deadpan)
Btw, Did you know that your favorite “childhood” film Babes in Toyland isn’t listed in the National Film Registry yet?…Well, I plan to rectify that by including it on my list of 25-50 films that should be inducted into the National Film Registry later this evening.
I must admit that I am still in “shock” that neither character portrayed by Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce (Holmes and Watson) and based on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s novel(s) “Sherlock Holmes” are not registar with the National Film Registry yet and you know how much I like Sherlock Holmes.
Which remind me…I have to ask T.S., why the NFR is so very important!…I guess to “preserve” these wonderful films (Which includes the ones on your 1930s 40s 50s etc…list) for future generations to enjoy.
dcd;)
Angelo, you are to be commended for not mincing words here, reagrdless of how others stand on this.
Not mincing words is right. The view on the other hand…….well, let’s not even go there.
THE WIZARD OF OZ is the BEST MOVIE. SHAME ON THOSE WHO HAVE PROBLEMS HERE!
The Wizard of Oz is a legitimate choice for best film of the 30′s. Any argument to the contrary isn’t even worthy of a response. To all the voters, this was a great listing of 25.
Robert and Russell, you live in a democracy I believe built on the ideal of free and open debate – shame on YOU!
Thanks for the opinions my good friends Russell and Robert, but Tony has an excellent point there!
Dark City Dame, thank you!
I am also shocked that the Sherlock Holmes stuff didn’t make that listing! I would have lost if I had placed a bet.
DCD: Do you think that BABES IN TOYLAND may have been listed as THE MARCH OF THE WOODEN SOLDIERS on that National Film Registry list?
Sam, old boy, if this doesn’t sum up your eternal fence sitting nature…
“Thanks for the opinions my good friends Russell and Robert, but Tony has an excellent point there!”
This is how my friend would have dealt with 1940s politics…
Thank you for those enriching words, Mr Hitler, and from you, Mr Stalin, but I believe Mr Gandhi has made a good point.
I am hopeful that, one day, Sam will actually not just praise every comment made on the site, unless it is mine, which is fair game.
Come on, Sam, let’s not continually raise the bar on sycophancy, let’s actually say what we REALLY feel.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey Tony does make excellent points. He and I already had our minor row earlier on and we came to a mutual understanding. And anyway at that rate, accelerated, we’d all be sending bombs in parcels to each other during the 40′s poll!!! ha!!!
Sam Juliano, “DCD: Do you think that BABES IN TOYLAND may have been listed as THE MARCH OF THE WOODEN SOLDIERS on that National Film Registry list?”
Hi! Sam Juliano,
I will email you the list and let you check it out!…
dcd
Thank You very much for that DCD.
SO WHEN WILL THE 40′S POLL BEGIN?
I CAN’T WAIT TO SEE EVERYBODY AT EACH OTHER’S THROAT AGAIN! THIS IS A LOT OF FUN.
I also look forward to the 40′s poll. There’s even a few films I need to catch up with before composing a ballot.
to answer the queries by Russell and Dave, the 40′s poll will be launching within a week.
I have been compiling some of my candidates for this list. It will be interesting to see where you go with this Sam. (and Allan too)
In wake of the 30s – 90s run of countdowns, being over, I’m revisiting all the countdowns, starting with the polls. Wow – what a one start with! I never read this thread till now. Without re-opening the can of worms, two points: 1) I agree that some set of identifiable criteria should define “best” or “greatest” vs. “favorite” however I have no problem on people voting for their favorites. (That said, the difficulty of this criteria, and the importance of having seen a huge quantity of films to make the distinction, has presented me from participating in any of the decade polls.) 2) The Wizard of Oz IS a great movie (please don’t ask me for my criterion despite #1…it’s too late!) and fully deserves the #1 spot. As for Renoir, I like his flawed “minor” films of the 50s more than many of his “masterpieces.” Are they “better”? I don’t know – but while I admire Rules of the Game, and have grown to really like some of its sequences, I’m flabbergasted as to how it can be seen as the greatest film of all time by some – it just seems far too narrow in its focus. I do wish the Renoir-lovers (and they are legion) could do a bit more than impressionistically assert his greatness – what is that specific quality of magic they seem to experience in his presence, which mostly evades me. (I have a whiff of it in the Renoir films I most like, and in the better descriptions of his appeal I’ve read, but nonetheless I still have trouble understanding the level of reverance he achieves. Ah well.) Great fun reading all this.