The question of the “greatest movie of all time” is a familiar one, often prompting a momentary freeze as we weigh personal affection against established cinematic canon. Do we choose the film we love most, or the one universally recognized as a masterpiece? The allure of selecting a “default” classic – Citizen Kane, Casablanca, or The Godfather – lies in its safety, a guarantee against accusations of questionable taste. But as one film critic recently discovered even as compiling a list of the 100 best movies of the past century, there’s no single right answer, and embracing individual preference is key.
The process, as detailed in a recent piece, wasn’t about identifying objective quality, but rather about acknowledging the deeply personal connection we forge with films. The critic’s list, broken down by decade with ten selections each, wasn’t born from a poll or committee, but from over 50 years of watching and responding to cinema. It’s a recognition that our movie tastes are shaped by an “indefinable electrical current of enthusiasm or joy or deep, radiating sadness,” a uniquely individual experience. This approach to film appreciation, prioritizing personal resonance over critical consensus, offers a refreshing perspective in a landscape often dominated by rankings and surveys.
Craftsmanship, Spirit, and the Eras They Reflect
The films chosen weren’t selected for their technical brilliance alone, but for their ability to intertwine “craftsmanship and spirit,” often featuring memorable performances and, crucially, a deep emotional impact. But beyond individual connection, the critic emphasized that each film serves as a “place marker for the things we’ve seen and the places we’ve been and the experiences of our forebears.” This contextualization highlights the power of cinema to reflect and preserve the cultural and social landscapes of their time.
Yet, this reflection isn’t without its limitations. The critic acknowledges a historical imbalance in the film industry, noting that for much of the 20th century, filmmaking remained largely dominated by white men. While women excelled in acting roles, opportunities behind the camera were significantly restricted until the 1960s and 1970s. Similarly, filmmakers of color faced systemic barriers, with early “race films” offering limited avenues for Black artists until later decades saw the emergence of pioneers like Oscar Micheaux, Charles Burnett, Melvin Van Peebles, and Julie Dash. This historical context reveals a “blank space filled with unrealized possibilities” within the history of cinema, a reminder of the stories left untold.
Omissions and the Pursuit of Personal Connection
Perhaps surprisingly, the critic’s list deliberately omits several films often considered cornerstones of cinematic achievement. Citizen Kane, Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz, and Goodfellas all find themselves absent. This isn’t a dismissal of their quality, but a preference for other works by the same filmmakers – Orson Welles’ The Magnificent Ambersons and Michael Curtiz’s Mildred Pierce, for example – that resonated more deeply. This highlights the subjective nature of the project, prioritizing personal connection over conventional wisdom.
The decade-by-decade approach also revealed patterns and nuances in the careers of prolific directors. Examining a filmmaker’s entire body of work allows for a recontextualization of their contributions, recognizing how their style and themes evolved over time. The critic notes the distinct shift in Howard Hawks’ work between the 1930s and the late 1950s, exemplified by the contrast between Scarface and Rio Bravo. The 1950s, in particular, proved a challenging decade for curation, with numerous deserving films vying for limited spots on the list. Titles like All About Eve, Tokyo Story, and Sunset Boulevard were among those difficult cuts.
The Value of Comedy and the Embrace of Idiosyncrasy
One notable aspect of the list is its inclusion of more comedies than typically found in “greatest films” rankings. The critic argues that comedies are often undervalued, treated as frivolous entertainment rather than serious art. However, they contend that comedies can reveal just as much about the human condition, and often possess a unique “soul” that resonates deeply with audiences. This emphasis on comedy underscores the critic’s broader point: that the value of a film lies not in its perceived seriousness, but in its ability to evoke a powerful emotional response.
the critic hopes this list will inspire a sense of “discovery, adventure, and imagination,” encouraging viewers to embrace their own idiosyncratic tastes. Just as individual preferences shape our relationships with others, they also define our connection to cinema. The “wrong taste,” the critic suggests, is often the one that feels most right. This perspective shifts the focus from objective evaluation to subjective experience, celebrating the unique and personal nature of film appreciation.
The critic’s work serves as a reminder that the conversation around “greatest movies” is ongoing, and that there’s always room for new perspectives and re-evaluations. The next step in this ongoing dialogue will be seeing how audiences respond to the full list of 100 films, and what new conversations it sparks about the art of cinema. Share your own picks and discuss what makes a film truly great in the comments below.
