Every 10 years, the British Film Institute publishes their poll of the best 100 movies. You know, the one that’s always had Citizen Kane in the top spot. And in the last edition it was finally bumped by Vertigo. This time, they are #3 and 2, and #1 is… something you’ve never heard of?
Distinguished by its restrained pace and static camerawork, the film is a slice of life depiction of a widowed housewife (portrayed by Delphine Seyrig) over the course of three days.
It has been labeled an exemplar of the slow cinema genre.
Slow cinema is a genre of art cinema filmmaking that emphasizes long takes and is typically characterised by a style that is minimalist, observational, and with little or no narrative.
Running time 3 hours 21 minutes! I think I won’t be running to go see that one.
The highest recentest movie is Portrait of a Lady on Fire, #30.
There are a good handful of great directors who make the list twice. From my count only Hitchcock and Godard are at the top with four entries each. Being so good that two of your movies make the top 100 of all time is already enough to be considered legendary, but four is something else. Must be really hard to breathe from so high up.
The Sight and Sound poll is now a major bellwether of critical opinion on cinema and this year’s edition (its eighth) is the largest ever, with 1,639 participating critics, programmers, curators, archivists and academics each submitting their top ten ballot.
The list
because of whom is making the list, they are going to be ranking through their own lenses for cultural, artistic, and craft impact.
I’ve only seen 19 of that top 100 list, but all 19 I’d consider better movies than E.T., Raiders and Saving Private Ryan. Only Jurassic Park would be close, and even then I’m not sure.
Spielberg makes popular movies, so loads of people have a lot of childhood nostalgia for them. But have you seen E.T. Recently? It’s pretty rough! If you went in without decades of conditioning telling you it is one of the best movies, you’d not rate it highly at all.
If the worst seat in the theater has the same price as the current ticket price, that’s bad. That just means they’re raising prices. That’s not great.
If they scale it and lower the price on the worst seats while also raising the prices on the best seats, that’s good. It means people can get in there for less money if they don’t mind sitting in a weird spot. And people who really care can pay more.
Also, at a sporting event or concert it’s relatively clear cut which seat is best. Not so much at a movie theater. If people disagree with the theater about which seat is best, they may find that the place they want to sit most is not the priciest ticket.
Lastly, I think you’ll see some interesting seating patterns at showings that aren’t sold out. When you choose seats, you can see which ones are taken. I think most people try to put some buffer between themselves and strangers. At least a seat or two. So now there is going to be all sorts of additional calculus.
The first person buys seats in the second best row with the second highest price. That’s the price you want to pay. Do you sit next to them? Do you move to a worse row for less money? Do you pay more to go to a better row? After you choose, the next person has an even more difficult choice.
All I care about is the seating being assigned. Other than special screenings in weird places, I generally won’t go to theaters that have open seating if I can avoid it.
