Sight and Sound's 2022 Lists: Is This Progressiveness Done Right?
Written by Andreas Babiolakis
The decennial Sight and Sound lists of the top one hundred films of all time (one voted upon by the magazine’s critics, and another by film directors) are here, and they have caused quite a stir already. The very first list BFI’s Sight and Sound put out in 1952 crowned Vittorio De Sica’s Bicycle Thieves the greatest film, but then Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane reigned supreme for decades. That was the case until 2012 saw the social film noir come in second, and Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo was the new winner. We didn’t have to wait too long for that to change, however, with what is arguably the biggest surprise in the history of the polls (both lists considered): Chantal Akerman’s Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles — a masterpiece of avant garde and feminist cinema — is now the greatest film of all time for at least ten years. The directors’ poll was a little more expected, with Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey winning. You can find the critics’ list here, and the directors’ list here (for reference, Jeanne Dielman placed fourth on the directors’ list, and 2001 placed sixth on the critics’ list, so their top picks weren’t too far off from one another).
Sight and Sound are already being lambasted and accused of being woke, but I find this line of thinking to be anachronistic. We live in a starkly different time. Being connected via the internet has advanced our cultural and artistic shifts tenfold. I feel like these lists reflect that without trying to be political, despite what others may say. Not everything that is inclusive is falsely so, and, while I have certainly seen lists that feel misguided with their progressive efforts (not going down that road today), I think that Sight and Sound is one of the better examples of what extensiveness can look like (ignoring how some nations and entire continents are underrepresented here, but that’s a discussion for another day). Some points that people have made include how strange it is that Céline Sciamma’s Portrait of a Lady on Fire placed thirtieth on the critics’ list when it is only a few years old. Listen. After over ten years of there being only two films from the twenty first century on the list (Mulholland Drive and In the Mood For Love, both which placed in the top ten on the critics’ list this time around), it’s nice that recent films are being embraced. Would I place Portrait that highly on my own personal list? Not necessarily, but I am more ecstatic that such a brilliant film is being championed; it doesn’t really matter where it placed for me.
Back to what is apparently the biggest upset: Jeanne Dielman coming in first (when it was thirty fifth in the 2012 critics’ list). Is it really that unusual of a pick? Sight and Sound has championed experimental, challenging, important films before, and that’s partially why their lists are held in such a high regard. I think Jeanne Dielman fits these descriptions. it definitely is one of the most singular cinematic experiences I’ve ever had. It does feel like a reinterpretation of the filmic language, especially since you don’t cut away from the titular character’s daily routines; you’re hypnotized by her claustrophobic and controlled life that she endures. If Jeanne Dielman was a mediocre film, I’d maybe feel like Sight and Sound’s critics are trying to make a statement about inclusivity. I do think Jeanne Dielman is an opus of many sorts: as art, as a statement, as a reconfiguration of what film can be. Citizen Kane and Vertigo also are. To me, it fits.
That’s not to say that I prefer Jeanne Dielman to Vertigo and Citizen Kane, because I don’t, but I’m also a fan of having something different. Citizen Kane has topped this list for literal decades. Isn’t it nice to get the unexpected (and I mean truly unexpected: Vertigo is far less of a shock than Jeanne Dielman) after all of these years of certainty? We’re talking, and it isn’t in the bad way (many publications make strange choices to stir negative press, and I don’t think Sight and Sound is doing this): we’re discussing a film many people haven’t even seen (and it’s one I think they should). Let’s be realistic: many people that have just learned about Jeanne Dielman won’t like it as much as they may feel like they should. It is a hugely difficult film after all. But I also don’t expect everyone to love this film as much as a number one placement would indicate, and I’m almost certain that Sight and Sound feel the same way. This is what their critics have chosen. This is also why I feel like these lists are far less problematic and holier-than-thou: there is a clear distinction that this is what has been voted upon by the outlet’s critics. Now, other lists are compiled the same way, and there’s no secret surrounding this fact. But Sight and Sound have one extra thing that set them apart from other lists, and it kind of saves them from the same scrutiny.
That would be the list compiled by directors, and this is the list that most readers identified with a few days ago. There are two lists to pick from, and both feel quite different in what they are saying, despite having a lot of crossover. The critics’ list is a commentary on where we are at now as a collective mind artistically and socially, whether the hypocritical snowflakes that want to claim “woke” like it or not (also, newsflash: anyone that calls others snowflakes are then themselves whiny snowflakes that need to be heard and feel individual and special, and that makes me one as well, so welcome to the party, fellow snowflakes). The directors’ lists are a celebration of cinema from those that have changed it themselves, as they admire their peers and those that broke ground before them. There are different points being made via these lists. Furthermore (and I know this first hand, having made many top one hundred lists), it is close to impossible to feature every great film in just one single top one hundred list, let alone two with the same criteria voted upon by different participants.
Am I rattled that my favourite 80s film, Raging Bull, is nowhere to be seen on the critics’ list? No. Do I think Get Out feels a little out of place (pun intended) on this list? Somewhat, but I still think it’s a near perfect achievement by Jordan Peele. Is this my list? No. I’ve made my peace by making my own lists, which I also gather isn’t something others have the time, the patience, or the interest in fulfilling. They look to the lists of others to get that same closure, so I can see why such a huge, significant leap by Sight and Sound could feel bothersome. Take these lists as ones that introduce you to films that will provoke you, push you beyond your comfort zones, and show you what you’ve never seen before. You’ll be far less bothered if you don’t consider the ranking. Take into account the films as lone artworks, and not where Sight and Sound placed them if that helps you. Not a single film on either list is bad, in my opinion. Almost every single one is worth discussing and sharing (and I’ve seen all of the films mentioned but Touki Bouki, which I will gladly remedy soon).
We’ve had the same discussions about the obvious picks (all of which I love by the way, be they Kane, Lawrence of Arabia, Seven Samurai, and Tokyo Story, the latter which I placed as my top film of the 50s). It’s nice to not only get something different and indicative of where cinema is at artistically nowadays, but we also have something that celebrates actual masterpieces whilst being inclusive. You don’t have to agree with where Sight and Sound placed these great works. No one told you you had to. Take the introduction to some of cinema’s greatest accomplishments as a blessing. Disagree all you want. You’re being given the opportunity to reexamine why you prefer the films you love alongside other masterworks. It will only strengthen your beliefs. If you wind up preferring what you find here, then guess what? You now have new favourites. What’s wrong with that? I don’t expect people to agree with my picks on my lists either. I do love starting discussions and discovering more noteworthy films I’ve overlooked, forgotten about, or never got around to. In another ten years, Sight and Sound will have a new list that will champion other films that we’ve neglected or rediscovered, and we’ll be back in the same position. I see it as a positive, because championing art is a constant discussion, not a be-all-end-all. Will Jeanne Dielman hold up its spot in ten years? Maybe. Maybe not. At least Sight and Sound isn’t relying on one sole list from yesteryear as a sole piece of truth, because art isn’t definitive. I’ll see you all in another ten years time on the topic.
Andreas Babiolakis has a Masters degree in Film and Photography Preservation and Collections Management from Toronto Metropolitan University, as well as a Bachelors degree in Cinema Studies from York University. His favourite times of year are the Criterion Collection flash sales and the annual Toronto International Film Festival.