I daresay the making of lists in the end is a matter of taste. (Being sweet
enough already, I prefer the starter and main course!) As to whether they
trigger deeper discussions, I can think of other, more interesting and
provocative ways of doing that. Do we really need a structure such as this to
prompt discussion of movies? Conversations I have usually arise because of a
film I've seen recently, a film I've seen not so recently, something I've
been thinking about, something I've been writing about, something I dreamt
about even. Memory remains a powerful entry into the discussion of films.
I've been writing a fair bit over the last couple of years about certain of
my own recollections, so I suppose I'm sensitive to this issue at the moment.
But I think that discussing films triggered by recollection does chime with
the way we actually experience greatness. I'm sorry, but lists always seem so
ahistorical to me! (For example, I simply adore Double Indemnity. But I can't
think of a film I want to see less at the moment than DI.) Perhaps we should
compile lists of recollections and augment them with personal circumstances,
details etc. After all, we tend to pick and choose not from established
canons but from real TV schedules, real store DVD racks, real Blockbuster
racks. I also compiled a personal canon in the '70s shortly after I fell in
love for the first time, as it were, but found this pastime untenable the
more I realized how my responses were being conditioned by the contingencies
of actually watching. For example, in 1980 I saw Hitchcock's The Wrong Man at
the National Film Theatre. I was pleased to have seen this lesser but
interesting Hitch and so it joined the list. But because it was the third or
fourth film I saw in a row that day, I didn't really enjoy it much, or even
take much in. Seeing it on a deadly freezing Monday afternoon in December,
its crisp account of deepening guilt and growing estrangement was compelling.
In 1980 I was taken in by a reputation. In 2002 I was taken in by a film. I
don't wish to advocate an entirely relativistic approach to apportioning
value, but I just hate the dumbing-down of film comment of which this is a
symptom. There are whole magazines in this country that are nothing but
gimmicks. Must we have hard-and-fast canons? If we want critics/filmmakers to
cite films as a yardstick of value, as I agree we should, then get Jonathan
Rosenbaum to write 1000 words on Dead Man or whatever, and get Scorsese to do
the same about The Red Shoes or whatever. Personally I would get more out of
that. And they might make a few pennies out of it. Still, I'm probably alone
in my over-earnest and ascetic tastes, aren't I... I'm sure I'll lighten up
over the next fortnight!
Richard