![\"\"](\"http:\/\/normanbuckley.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/IMG_4874.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nEvery ten years since 1952 Sight and Sound magazine has compiled\u00a0a list<\/a>\u00a0from various film critics and directors, voting on the best films of all time.\u00a0In 2002 the critics voted for CITIZEN KANE, VERTIGO, RULES OF THE GAME, THE GODFATHER AND THE GODFATHER PART II, TOKYO STORY, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN, SUNRISE, 8 \u00bd, and SINGIN\u2019 IN THE RAIN. The directors\u2019 list had some overlap: CITIZEN KANE, THE GODFATHER AND THE GODFATHER PART II, 8 \u00bd, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, DR. STRANGELOVE, THE BICYCLE THIEF, RAGING BULL, VERTIGO, RASHOMON, RULES OF THE GAME, and SEVEN SAMURAI.<\/p>\n Citizen Kane is frequently cited as one of the greatest film of all time. Among its many virtues, it uses the power of light and perspective to suggest psychological states in its story of power and wealth and loneliness. What various characters think of Charles Foster Kane is always reflected by his size and positioning in the frame. He is frequently seen receding into the vanishing point, reinforcing the idea that no one in the film can really get a handle on who he was or what he was about. While I\u2019m not one who subscribes to the idea of \u201ctop ten\u201d lists, nor do I care much what various critics think when it comes to this type of over-simplification (I think lists tend to be subjective and arbitrary), there\u2019s something that jumps out at me: the most recent film to make either of these lists is RAGING BULL, which was released in 1980. What does that say about the current state of the cinema?<\/p>\n While I certainly think there are some interesting films in any given year, I bring this up when I talk to my students, asking them to reflect on the absence of any recent film on this Sight and Sound list, and question why this might be so. Are films of the last thirty years less well-made on some level–not technically necessarily, but well-crafted as a whole?–redundant, lacking in cohesion, playing to the lowest common denominator, afraid to tackle ideas? I\u2019m not sure, but I know the days of feeling that I might see a masterpiece when I go to the movie theater are few and far between.\u00a0Even when I think there might be a great film looming, I\u2019m usually disappointed.<\/p>\n I find very often that even films that seem to be wrestling with something important often seem vague, unclear about what they\u2019re truly trying to\u00a0get at<\/em>. Some of this can no doubt be attributed to the enormous number of people who are required to sign off on any studio venture, where risk is avoided at all costs, but what about the smaller films, the independent films, the foreign films? I watch a lot of smaller movies on the Independent Movie Channel or Sundance, and I frequently find myself thinking, \u201cWell, that was almost great.\u201d But I certainly don\u2019t feel the need to go back and watch anything again and again, as I do with the films of Hitchcock, Fellini, Kurosawa, Bergman, Antonioni, Kubrick, David Lean, Billy Wilder, George Stevens, Jean Renoir, et al. There’s a reason these filmmakers have endured and I\u2019m curious as to how to distill the essence of that ability to speak to so many people over the decades.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\n<\/em><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n