Thursday, August 02, 2012

Vertigo vs Citizen Kane: battle of the fat blokes


The results of the 2012 Sight & Sound Poll are out and the collective wisdom of hundreds of critics and directors asserts that Vertigo is, notwithstanding what everyone has said for the past 50 years, better than Citizen Kane; one white, male, overweight raconteur and curmudgeon nudging another off the pinnacle. I don’t agree: I don’t think it’s even Hitchcock’s best movie, and it’s not my favourite either (which is a different thing, but more on that later).

Every time one of these polls is staged, the same quibbles arise. What’s the bloody point of it all? Well, the first point is to shift copies of Sight & Sound (or Film Comment or Empire or whatever) and then, on a more altruistic note, to raise awareness of the richness of cinema as an art form, to encourage people to see some movies again or for the first time and to provoke debate and discussion and dialectic. Obviously nobody is arguing that Citizen Kane was, in some empirical and absolute sense, the best film ever until 2002, but that this has now ceased to be the case, as if helium has usurped hydrogen as the lightest element.

The other gripe concerns the selection of those who vote in the poll, and with it the whole nature of elitism in the creation of a canon. “But my favourite film is Star Wars [or The Godfather or The Shawshank Redemption or Dirty Dancing] so why should I care what Mark Kermode or Quentin Tarantino thinks?” The answer of course is that Kermode and Tarantino have almost certainly seen Star Wars, whereas I’m not sure how many diehard devotees of Star Wars have seen Vertigo or Kane or Tokyo Story (number three on the list and top of the directors’ picks). And when you’ve seen Star Wars and Vertigo and several thousand other movies of all genres and periods and countries, you start to realise that there’s a difference between your own favourite film and the film you consider to be the best. (Back to Hitchcock: I suspect Rear Window or Psycho are among his best, but my favourite is Spellbound, even though I’m well aware of its glaring faults. And as for Welles, I’d pick The Stranger or Chimes at Midnight over Kane.) So ultimately there’s nothing wrong with having Star Wars as your favourite film, but without any critical context, why do you expect us to care?

That said, a well organised poll does tend to say something about the sampled group. I always think of the time customers at the David Lean Cinema in Croydon were asked to pick the best film of all time; confronted with the glories of Hitchcock and Welles, Ozu and Kurosawa, Bergman and Ford and Wilder and Ed Wood, they picked that epic of love and loss and duty and windy bonnets, Mrs Brown. If only Hitchcock had replaced Kim Novak with that nice Judi Dench, there would surely be no arguments.

PS: In the New Statesman, Ryan Gilbey – one of the voters – queries the dearth of recent movies in the list.

6 comments:

Paul said...

Ah Chimes of Midnight is a wonderful film. Only saw it last month after I downloaded a torrent.

Rol said...

Still, I don't think Vertigo is better than Kane. I prefer North By North West. I struggled to think which is the best Hitchcock. I'd probably have to go for Psycho, technically, and for sheer bravado (I love the way the plot changes direction so drastically after the first act) but the fact that it's his best known and most imitated movie probably gets the film snobs' backs up.

Then again, I've only seen 15 of the Top 50 (and I thought I was a movie snob!)... and I notice that Kermode's favourite doesn't even get a look in.

Archie Valparaiso said...

What strikes me most about the list is how set in stone some films are - the ones that Cahiers and S&S itself kept rattling on about, and the ones still used today on film-studies courses to illustrate ... nobody's quite sure what. Yes, I'm looking at you La Règle du Jeu, 400 Coups, Rashomon, The Searchers (alt. title: That Doorway Shot And An Otherwise Potboiler Western) and seemingly the entire filmography of Jean-Luc Goddamn Godard.

Still, there maybe some hope for them yet. I note with mild glee that Claire's Knee, Last Year at Marienbad and Exterminating Angelare absent from the list.

Stale, endogamic, tediously predictable exercises like this should be treated with Le Mépris they deserve.

Annie said...

Yay for Chimes at Midnight. I wish I could have seen Citizen Kane without all the hype surrounding it.

Not many laughs on that list, are there?

Tim Footman said...

Best Shakespeare movie adaptation ever, BWT? Can't be far off.

I think we'll know more once all the individual lists are published, Rol. I don't think Dr Kermode's will offer many surprises...

Here's some background info by another of the contributors, Archie. Two interesting things: for the 2012 list he didn't allow himself to include any films he'd had in previous years: and by 2002 “[I] assume that it’s no longer necessary to mention Chaplin, Godard, Hitchcock, Ozu, Renoir or Welles.” Oh, and in 1992 he includes Chimes at Midnight, which is nice.

8 1/2 is quite droll, Annie. And I laughed at Man With A Movie Camera, but maybe I misunderstood it. But yeah, it's hard to guffaw when you're too busy stroking your chin.

DanPloy said...

Of course you are quite correct Tim, critics, having seen more paintings/movies/theatre than most ordinary mortals are more able to put a particular item into some sort of context so their opinion is more 'worthy' than the layman, (assuming they have a modicum of intelligence).

However avante garde works do not get that historical perspective and cannot be treated the same which I guess is why there is no Twilight movie in that list.