I'm afraid I don't have the answer to your question. I haven't actually read most of the original columns - I merely pulled out the top tens without reading the accompanying comments. I do know that some of the other lists I've been adding from other critics specifically mention things like "Andy Warhol retrospective" as an item on the top 10. I'm guessing that, in many cases, most of the older films are in fact from retrospectives.
I also know that Rosenbaum has spent a lot of time writing about the vagaries of film distribution, and how distributors and publicists control our perception of what is available and what is good. Perhaps by including such films he simply hoped to make as many people as possible aware of the titles, and of the fact that there was more to great cinema than what was playing in most theaters. Even if they didn't get a chance to see them, he would at least try to remind readers to not limit their view to new films distributed by the major studios.
(But, as you might guess, I'm just throwing out ideas here - I don't really know the definite answer.)
"but did it really get a run that would allow more than a dozen of his readers to have attended?"
Well, some of these lists were published in the Chicago Reader, in which case a lot of his readers, especially in the days before the internet, probably lived in Chicago and so probably did have access to the same showings that he did. Presumably he also published reviews of the retrospectives as they were going on, so that interested readers could actually have a chance to attend them. I also imagine that, in the days before home video, retrospectives and special screenings were more common and popular than they are now (in the big cities, at least.)
It's more about whether JR explains where he saw these things that didn't (I'm pretty sure) get a theatrical release in the year he lists them. For a handy example, something like Chris Marker's 1953 Les statues meurent aussi showing up on a list sometime between 1974 and the present. Sure, a film critic/scholar might have seen this at a retrospective/special screening -- there's an IMDb reviewer in Finland who saw it on the big screen last year -- but did it really get a run that would allow more than a dozen of his readers to have attended?
I guess I could read his books/look up all his available archived columns -- but since you've already done that for us (!!thanks!!) I thought you might have more of an insight into that sort of anomaly.
This is a common thing that critics do where they limit their top ten lists to films released theatrically in the US for the first time. You can argue it's flawed, but I think the idea is to get people to go out and see the films the year they release the top 10 list.
I'm certainly not complaining that there are films from the '30s-'60s on the list(s) -- I'd be in some kind of hell if in 2011 I could only watch movies released in 2011, for example.
But I'm guessing some of these got actual theater releases (L'armee des ombres comes to mind) and he saw others in retrospectives? It's slightly confusing.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 6 of 6
Timec
I'm afraid I don't have the answer to your question. I haven't actually read most of the original columns - I merely pulled out the top tens without reading the accompanying comments. I do know that some of the other lists I've been adding from other critics specifically mention things like "Andy Warhol retrospective" as an item on the top 10. I'm guessing that, in many cases, most of the older films are in fact from retrospectives.I also know that Rosenbaum has spent a lot of time writing about the vagaries of film distribution, and how distributors and publicists control our perception of what is available and what is good. Perhaps by including such films he simply hoped to make as many people as possible aware of the titles, and of the fact that there was more to great cinema than what was playing in most theaters. Even if they didn't get a chance to see them, he would at least try to remind readers to not limit their view to new films distributed by the major studios.
(But, as you might guess, I'm just throwing out ideas here - I don't really know the definite answer.)
"but did it really get a run that would allow more than a dozen of his readers to have attended?"
Well, some of these lists were published in the Chicago Reader, in which case a lot of his readers, especially in the days before the internet, probably lived in Chicago and so probably did have access to the same showings that he did. Presumably he also published reviews of the retrospectives as they were going on, so that interested readers could actually have a chance to attend them. I also imagine that, in the days before home video, retrospectives and special screenings were more common and popular than they are now (in the big cities, at least.)
RainDogX
http://www.indiewire.com/survey/indiewire-2013-year-end-critics-poll/best-film/jonathan-rosenbaumbeeswax
Yeah, I get the concept of critics' year-end round-ups. And, as I said, I also understand including something like L'armée des ombres which gets a belated or special re-release in the critic's home country.It's more about whether JR explains where he saw these things that didn't (I'm pretty sure) get a theatrical release in the year he lists them. For a handy example, something like Chris Marker's 1953 Les statues meurent aussi showing up on a list sometime between 1974 and the present. Sure, a film critic/scholar might have seen this at a retrospective/special screening -- there's an IMDb reviewer in Finland who saw it on the big screen last year -- but did it really get a run that would allow more than a dozen of his readers to have attended?
I guess I could read his books/look up all his available archived columns -- but since you've already done that for us (!!thanks!!) I thought you might have more of an insight into that sort of anomaly.
ebaum1saik
@beeswaxThis is a common thing that critics do where they limit their top ten lists to films released theatrically in the US for the first time. You can argue it's flawed, but I think the idea is to get people to go out and see the films the year they release the top 10 list.
beeswax
I'm certainly not complaining that there are films from the '30s-'60s on the list(s) -- I'd be in some kind of hell if in 2011 I could only watch movies released in 2011, for example.But I'm guessing some of these got actual theater releases (L'armee des ombres comes to mind) and he saw others in retrospectives? It's slightly confusing.
tjjj6k
Thanks for putting this up, it will be useful!(would be great to have his american top 100 list too (the one before the top 1000), which is not yet on this site)