|
Those are great examples, V. I like your approach. The only thing I think is unfortunate (although I don’t necessarily disagree) is that films like Night at the Roxbury and The Goonies are automatically ruled out, purely due to their less-advanced nature. Admittedly, it would be a near-impossible challenge to debate that one of those is “better” than 2001: A Space Odyssey, but if in your mind Roxbury is the best in it’s class of slapstick comedies, then it ought to get some credit somehow.
Unfortunately, I think by not breaking our submissions up by genres, entire categories of film will be neglected, purely because the class of movie doesn’t compete at an artistic level. It’s the same reason a horror film has never won Best Picture, and a slapstick comedy has no chance of even being considered for nomination. The Academy and film schools alike have their own definitions of what should and shouldn't garner respect. Even Charlie Chaplin — lauded as one of the great pioneers — was never even nominated for Best Picture. I personally feel that modern slapstick classics like The Jerk or Caddyshack deserve mention on a top 100 non-horror list, but unfortunately they’re not likely to make anybody's top 20 “best film” lists, thus will be ruled out from the get-go.
Even if we did attempt to form this list based on the artistic quality of the films, “artistry” is a concept that will never be agreed upon. Critics are constantly torn between judging technical prowess vs. raw creativity -- two very different, and often competing, concepts, not just in film, but in all art forms. I don’t technically know much about film, other than what I read on the internet and watch in documentaries, and don’t have any experience or education in the field like some in this forum do. But as an analogy, I do have some education in music (6 credits shy of a music minor, I didn’t want to delay graduation to finish). That education -- which included music theory, history, recording techniques, sound synthesis, some random stuff like world music and the history of rock, and of course, actually learning how to play instruments -- gives me some ability to judge music performances and recordings at an academic level. If this were a music forum, I *could* do that, but I probably wouldn’t just because those aren’t the qualities in music as an art form that I hold dear. Instead, I’d rather talk about how Joy Division, who could barely play their instruments, deconstructed rock in a way that opened the door to a baser form of music. Or how the members of Tortoise, from their post-hardcore perspective, flipped jazz on its side, helping to create a brand new subgenre. Those artists, and many of the ones I love the most, were ripped by mainstream critics during their time, and even in retrospect, are unlikely to ever get a high-profile music award. Point being, even if we could separate ourselves from our personal favorites, everyone has their own means by which they judge a film’s quality, and those standards will never be agreed upon.
I think this process would be less debatable, and probably more accurate, if we called this list “HDC’s Top 100 Non-Horror Favorites.” Nobody can really argue with whether or not someone does or does not like a movie, but they certainly can pontificate over what, in their minds, constitutes artistic merit. Besides, if someone were to stumble upon this list, it might actually be interesting for them to discover non-horror films that horror fans like. Otherwise, it’s just another attempted rehash of the “best” movies of all time, and probably one that’s going to be weighted towards genres that horror fans are drawn to.
|