Greatest Films of All Time

But in high school English class, we were also taught that we had to provide a foundation for our arguments. In such an essay, we couldn't just say "Huck Finn is Mark Twain's masterpiece" without saying why, could we? (Also, does it matter which album is Velvet Underground's masterpiece? Who cares? Since when are normative appraisals more valuable then actually talking about how the records are different, the same, conflicting, etc.?)

My problem lies in the disconnect here: Okay, so Sister Ray sounds like a "living, breathing snake", interesting analysis. Now how do you jump from such a subjective description of an emotional relationship to "I give it an 8.4"? On the one hand you have Scaruffi/AfterHours as these hyperbolic figures describing artistic relationships in literary terms and on the other you have Scaruffi/AfterHours as these scientists who have developed the ultimate formula for categorizing art.

How do you rank a tear against a scream? Or a laugh against a sob?

I fantasize about getting Scaruffi to admit his numerical ratings are bogus.

I would if I did more reading...I just prefer music and films...but it's not out of the question in the future...poetry might be more realistic as its less time consuming.

I started watching Sayat Nova and am about 30 minutes in so far. I will get back to you when I'm finished. So far it's fascinating and I am very thankful that you've introduced me to it!

Fair enough. I could be wrong (and I'm not saying you're one of them) but I suspect most don't really see or fully understand everything thats unfolding and being communicated in Citizen Kane--there is astounding degree of visual and structural depth to be found. The multi-faceted emotional palette being communicated by Welles is astonishing while overall the film represents the search for truth and the meaning of existence that has plagued man for a milennia. There is a cold, sterile darkness that pervades and overwhelms the film (rarely discussed so I am assuming this goes largely unnoticed) that, combined with it's immense technical wizardry and structural madness, coordinates into a stream-of-conscious depletion and deconstruction of a grand life lived in the vain of emotional ineptitude and happiness. It is easy to see that the film is about this on the surface and feel it on a superficial level while being impressed by Welles but it may take many viewings to feel the depth and oblivion of it in its full flourish.

Either way the list is totally subjective and you may never experience what I have with this film. But be sure that I have no doubts about my placement of Citizen Kane and as with my entire list has been placed under careful and thorough consideration and many viewings. As astonishing as Mirror and Stalker and the rest of Tarkovskys films are to me I am very sure of Citizen Kane's ranking above them, and am very sure of its merits near or alongside Nostalghia.

I dont think I have but you've grabbed my interest. Which films would you compare his to on here?

With a review like that, how could I not see it? Especially during this Halloween season.

Btw, great seeing Once Upon a Time in the West shoot up to #20. That film is like the black tar heroin of cinema.

Thanks I'll be bringing back that top ten log soon...got bored with it for awhile because I was only watching about 2 or 3 films per week and listening to no music - so haven't had much use for it - maybe I'll make it monthly...

Don't know why I haven't seen Late Spring yet...I'll look into the others as well.

Yes, Passion of Joan of Arc is astonishing no question about that

Thanks, I haven't seen it yet, but ordered it earlier this week and will own it sometime between today and Monday. Just like you've said, I expect it to be even better than the version I list here, which is saying something.

I think the "Hell" sequence is a superb example of economical set design and grisly theatre. It's pretty shocking stuff, even now, but especially given it's time period. I also think this portion of the film is amazing visually but could've used more direction and more emphatic editing (such as Eisensteinian montage) to amplify it's power and make it a more delirious & psychologically intense experience; as it is, and despite the impressiveness of what it shows, it's somewhat aimless in certain sequences. I think the film as a whole is very impressive in certain ways but I wish it would've probed deeper to find something more to say psychologically. Outside of it's visuals (which are alternately mediocre and amazing) I found it rather superficial upon repeat viewings...as in, once it lost it's raw power there wasn't much left...which is why I eventually downgraded it to a 6.5/10.

If I compare it to other horror films, such as Hitchcock's masterpiece Psycho, there's so much more going on psychologically within the characters, themes, it's cinematography and the mocking, manipulative tone overall, that it retains, and infact, grows exponentially in its power upon repeat viewings, where it doesn't matter if one knows what's going to happen because there is so much there that is endlessly compelling. Psycho becomes not just a stunningly played and constructed horror film but actually becomes a visual "murdering" of 40's/50's film as a whole; it is intentionally "old" and "cheap" in look through all of it's first section until the shower scene suddenly and dramatically forces it into the ultra modern and hyperrealistic, Hitchhock mockingly expressing: "this is no longer some old 50's movie, this is actually happening." The rest of the film continues alternating back and forth visually from the "40's/50's" to the adult and ultra modern in this way as if the entire film structure enacts a visual representation of Norman Bates' schizophrenia, the "40's/50's" portions being "the past" or even "mother", and the sudden bouts of murder/psychosis being his unpleasant "return to reality" or even "Norman"--and one could even view them vice versa: from "the past" or the "old Norman" to "the present" or "Norman in the guise of his dead mother". By the end Psycho has grown into an absurd (almost senseless), and shocking psychological frenzy that seemed to have no other point than to toy with, entangle and upset, or "murder", the audiences expectations. Thus, it says as much about the questionable intentions and psychosis of the director and his placing of the viewer as a helpless victim, as it does about the depiction of events in the film itself.

TV shows can make it, but to qualifiy as a "movie" they'd have to be collected into a mini series, as in Von Trier's The Kingdom.

So far it doesn't matter though: I've never seen a TV series that was even close to a 9. I also don't watch much TV at all so... Probably the greatest I've ever seen was Arrested Development. The Sopranos was very good as well (though I've only seen portions of its seasons). But even these were in the 7-ish range, "masterpieces" for TV, but not even close to the likes of Citizen Kane, Taxi Driver, 2001...and The Sopranos is a FAR cry (at least what I've seen) from the overwhelmingly shattering experience The Godfather, Part 2 is, etc.

I haven't seen the movie yet and I've never seen the Twin Peaks TV show but have wanted to. I've had a hunch it would turn out being the greatest TV show though so I don't doubt your assessment one bit.

Due to it's astounding depth, to explain in great detail what makes Nostalghia a 9.5 would require me to write a full review which is simply too demanding to do right here on the fly, but will be done once I get to it on my "Guide to my Greatest Films" list.

So, as a semi-review, here you go:

Every shot is a supreme masterpiece of cinematography, beautifully, flawlessly composed and virtually every shot is physically longing with a heavy, painful sorrow and dream-like nostalgia, and the environments seem to be akin to an afterlife, with the characters lost and wandering within it.

Compositionally, the film is a masterpiece, gradiently expanding into a towering, statuesque, seamless stream-of-conscious hierarchy of religious-like iconography, as if it has become something akin to a slew of great paintings, sequenced together as one whole work of art (such as Klimt's Beethovenfries, only with each character acting and moving). Due to the procession like nature of the proceedings, the film takes on the character of a funereal, eternal search for meaning with each scene/sequence granted the care, delicacy & prominence of a miraculous event unfolding.

Thematically, the film is perhaps the most profound experience in film history, awash in ambiguous symbology and allusions too difficult and extensive to cover here (and perhaps impossible to fully delve into even in a full review). The afterlife, rebirth, God, saving the world by mere postulate or belief, profound longing for one's life and country, insanity/sanity, poetry, art, surrealism/reality, an extension of oneself through the being of another, the importance of religion, are all alluded to or dealt with extensively (but always ambiguously, adding to the profundity)

Acting: the lead character (Oleg Yankovsky) is in a constant state of devastated, profound thought (you can literally feel the depths of his nostalgia at all times), while the other near-lead (Erland Josephson) is a complicated, insane genius who's lost his sense of reality and believes he can save the world by suicide (perhaps a condemnation and allusion to Jesus).

The sound is beautifully clear, prominent and natural and the music, utilizing Verdi's Requiem and Beethoven's 9th, is spare but perfectly captured and placed.

On a mere technical level (visually especially) the film far surpasses other 80's films and seems totally out of place, existing as an almost supernatural achievement. What is being shot are mainly natural exteriors and interiors, the technical quality of which wasn't duplicated until perhaps the 2000's with films such as Jeunet's Amelie, which employed far superior technology than Tarkovsky had at his disposal (though Bertolucci's Conformist from the 70's, by the clips & trailers I've seen [haven't seen the whole film yet], appears to approach Nostalghia in terms of visual quality).

Re: Twin Peaks... it is on my "to see" list, a ways from the top, but I'll get to it

Don't even bother with AfterHours, he's certifiably insane. He'll try to convince you it's a 9.5 when it's an absolutely flawless 10.

Sounds like I should just post your list up here instead of my own because obviously mine is totally wrong!

Wakka, I can't seem to understand how Afterhours ranks Nostalghia over The Mirror or Stalker either...Inland Empire over Mulholland Dr....I'm lost on that one too. In fact, I'm lost on how Afterhours ranks many films in the 8's while leaving (IMO) far better ones in the 7's; his appreciation (shown w/extremely high ratings) for influential silent films of the 20's and 30's is something I find to be a bit odd as well.

But, in Afterhours' defense, I should point out that like us all, he has his own set of criteria from which to judge film. And he, by no means, is ignorant to Asian film and/or the film of the many auteurs you listed. In fact, if you check his extended list, you will find that he has not only seen many -nearly all- of the films you listed, but he has rated them according to his criteria as well. Afterhours spends as much time watching and rating films as anyone out there, and he updates his opinions on them constantly. His lists are worthy of great respect even if you don't agree with the ordering of such. His updates are always very interesting to check out.

Also, I find The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover to be better than The Draughtsman's Contract, and I find Blow-Up to be far better than the overwhelmingly slow, meandering L'Avventura...and I find it to be a fair amount better than Antonioni's (also amazing) L'Eclisse. And Taxi Driver rocks, man. I could easily see it as being Scorsese's masterpiece. How are you going to suggest it as his 5th best?

Yea, great stuff :-)