BFI And All That

[KorkyKat]

What gives with the BFI Top 100? How in the heck can "The Third Man" be at No.1 and that pathetic piece of celluloid " Brief Encounter" be at No.2?

I just don't understand it. Are they locked in a time warp? Are they really saying that no other film of a much better quality since 1949 has been made?

I actually think The Third Man and Brief encounter are crap. Both for their gross exaggerations and Brief Encounter makes East Enders seem plausible.

Is the BFI run by old duffers who use a magic lantern to view their films?

Is it any wonder that the British Film Industry is all but dead?

S'pose I'd best be off in case one of the old duffers decides to “...have me in a dither with his zither”,

[Raigmore]

Originally Posted by KorkyKat

I actually think The Third Man and Brief encounter are crap.

I agree that BFI ratings are unrealistic and not to everyone's taste but to call The Third Man as "crap" is harsh IMO. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but a lot of us think that it is a great classic. But certainly not the British No #1, probably not even in the top 10; it is a sort of a film that takes a few viewings to grow on you.

As for A Brief Encounter, I fully agree that it is a grossly overrated romantic nonsense. I was struggling to keep awake the only time I saw it and have no desire to see it ever again.

[douglasb]

Using your logic, if a film made in 1992 secured the #1 slot, we could argue "Are they saying no film of a much better quality was made before 1992 ?"

And that would be a daft thing to say, wouldn't it?

[KorkyKat]

Not really Douglas. At least one could argue that is 'contemporary' as opposed to 1949. I just don't go along with the notion that particular films are deserving of such permanent high positions. It also reflects badly on the work of more current directors and actors.

[AndyWilson]

What on earth has when a film was made got to do with how good it is?

[douglasb]

Originally Posted by KorkyKat

It also reflects badly on the work of more current directors and actors.

If contemporary work is good enough, it'll get credit. Modern directors and actors don't need wrapped up in cotton wool to protect them from the big bad classics.

Haven't the BFI done a Best British Films of the 80s list anyway?

Really, what you seem to be saying is that 'we should ignore older stuff because I don't like it'. Again, using your logic we should discount anyone who dared hold a paint brush before 1968.

[Raigmore]

Originally Posted by AndyWilson

What on earth has when a film was made got to do with how good it is?

Nothing directly, but contemporary values might influence reviews depending on the theme of the story. Take 12 Angry Men for instance; a great classic anytime and anyplace, but if the same film was made exactly the same way now in a contemporary setting and without there being the original for comparison, there would be more than a few feathers ruffled at the all male & all white jury. Some have even commented that it was rather unusual even in 1957.

Of course, costume dramas and historical films have to reflect the attitude of the day irrespective of when they were actually made. But with contemporary themes, racist overtones and sexism were accepted in the 50s and even 60s but not now. How many times have we heard the hero or some other male actor tell a female character "this is no place for a woman" in an annoyingly patronising manner in older films?

[Wendell Armbruster]

Originally Posted by KorkyKat

I actually think The Third Man and Brief encounter are crap. Both for their gross exaggerations . . .

'Gross exaggerations' of what, may I ask? Exaggerated camera technique, perhaps, in the case of The Third Man? Exaggerated what in Brief Encounter? I really don't fully understand what you're getting at, Korkykat. And why don't you let us know what you might have put at the top of the list if the BFI had thought you worthy of asking.

[BigH]

[QUOTE=KorkyKat;8379387

I actually think The Third Man and Brief encounter are crap. Both for their gross exaggerations and Brief Encounter makes East Enders seem plausible.


[/QUOTE]



what sort of films would you like to see in the list ?

[marshy2004]

Originally Posted by BigH

what sort of films would you like to see in the list ?

I'm sure he's hoping they'll update the list this year to accommodate In Bruges.

[SimonI]

Actually in terms of these sorts of lists in general, I think it is unwise to include anything made in the last decade since if we're talking about concepts of greatness, it is impossible to properly evaluate something's position when it is recent. You need a period of time to pass to sort it out. After all, I recall that some Spice Girls album featured near the top in some albums list in 2000 - where would it be now?

[LordoftheDance]

I think The Third Man is overrated also, but just adore Brief Encounter. I'm not particularly aggrieved to see them both in the BFI's top 10 though, as I know how much they're aggrandised amongst critics.

[AKPiggott]

I'd never be so bold to call The Third Man "crap", but the zither music was loathsome and completely spoiled it.

[marshy2004]

It deserves its praise for the "cuckoo clock" speech alone.

[Livius]

I don't think there's much point in expending too much energy arguing over this one. The original post just reeks of the powerful and unpleasant smell of the troll. It's very difficult to imagine any serious intent behind a post which applies words like "pathetic" & "crap" to these films.
Suffice to say that if the OP can't understand the high regard in which these films are held after viewing them it's unlikely anyone could explain it to him.

[marshy2004]

Oh I know he's just trolling - have a look at his posting history - he seems to spend most of his time winding folks up on the GDF rather than discussing any movies.