I’ve been trying to catch up with Sight & Sound lately. It’s a magazine I’ve always found strangely uninviting, and perhaps that’s the reason I’m still behind in my reading – I’m only now leafing through the February 2010 issue and scanning the provocative ‘Films of the Decade’ article. It’s one of those Q-style list features magazines routinely do when the staff can’t think of anything better – and why not? It’s a fun day in the office, and fun to read.
This time, the limit is 30 (Q sometimes aims for 1,001), and the criteria is “films that best represent the decade’s most distinctive oeuvres and movements”. The decade being January 1 2000-December 31 2009 (I often wonder, if decades began in ‘85, ‘95, ‘05 etc., would modern history look any different?). I’m not about to take issue with the fine choices – the selection includes The Five Obstructions, There Will Be Blood and Inland Empire – but I do want to take a look at the rationale offered in the article that follows.
Apparently, the team started off by simply comparing their favourite films, but it soon became obvious that the list would somehow transcend personal preference and say more about “cultural significance”. It’s not long, though, before it’s revealed that Wall•E “disappoints”. British films, it’s thought, “rarely broke new ground”. Already, there are three different scales of judgment involved. Presumably, to make it through the gauntlet, the Top 30 needed to be culturally significant, innovative and impressive. This isn’t outlandish, and it’s hard to argue that many of the films on the Sight & Sound list don’t meet these requirements.
But it got me thinking – how do critics normally present their criteria? More often than not, I think they don’t. (Sight & Sound is a completely mundane example of a critic attempting to tuck his needs under the rug.) Maybe a critic needs to hide from/protect himself, constantly. No one likes to think of themselves as going into the cinema with a rigid set of demands. Like Clive James once wrote, “those without theories write better”. But everyone has theories, even Pauline Kael.
Also notable in the Sight & Sound article is what it does with Africa.
The Mauritanian director Abderrahmane Sissako’s Waiting for Happiness was preferred to his later Bamako (2006), and ends up representing the entire undervalued cinema of a continent, largely through lack of consensus as to which other titles should qualify. We should have done better.
It’s unusual for such a skew to get acknowledged upfront, so this is semi-laudable. On the other hand – if they knew what they were doing, and thought it was wrong, why didn’t the team just, er, do better?