The American Society of Cinematographers Chooses the Top 100 Films of the 20th Century*

Can’t wait to see this.

 

It's really astounding. Because of the limitations of film, the original release has to be printed on color film, thus it always had an unintended sepia coloration, and release prints were as much as six generations from the negative.

In this case, they went back to the camera negatives and the original audio tapes and, using a release print as the guide, remade the film from those elements in 4K and 5.1 surround.

 

I guess with lists like this there is always a compromise between whatever the title of the list is and normative expectations. I wouldn't say these are all great cinematography per se but some balance of cinematography and critical standing. I would be more interested in seeing a list of films with great cinematography regardless of critical or commercial success.

... the Society released their members’ list of the 100 milestone films in the art and craft of cinematography of the 20th century.

 

My favorite film from the list is The Thin Red Line.



The Thin Red Line (1998), shot by John Toll, ASC (Dir. Terrence Malick)



I love Malick's first three films very much but TTRL is my favorite. I saw it five times in various theaters during the winter and spring of 1999; I couldn't get enough of it. As much as I appreciate that it's Malick's film, it's absolutely John Toll's compositions that make grand in scale.

 

The point of the list seems a bit confused, or maybe just contradictory, which may confuse people. On the one hand they say it's "to showcase the best of cinematography," but on the other they say they are films that honor "the significant achievements of cinematographers whose artistry changed or furthered the art and craft of the profession." If you use the last criterion you will end up with films that many might not consider as the "best," but which were indeed revolutionary.

As for The Longest Day, I just saw it recently on TCM, and while it certainly was clean and sharp, I wouldn't call it particularly artistic or revolutionary.

John K.

 

Which I mastered for Russ Meyer himself, along with 11 other films for home video. Russ was quite a character. He did light every single scene himself, operated the camera, produced and directed, edited, and in some cases wrote or co-wrote the films. He felt he was a lousy camera operator, so you'll note that most of Meyer's films have very little camera movement: every shot lasts like 1 or 2 seconds, so all the movement is just the "kinetic energy" of the cutting and framing.

 

The 1927 B&W silent film that most DPs often cite as being the most beautiful B&W film ever shot was F.W. Murnau's Sunrise. In the ASC clubhouse, there's a big poster for Sunrise at the end of the hallway right in front of the ASC boardroom, so you can't miss it. That is a beautiful, beautiful film. To me, a lot of silent films are overrated, but not this one.

 

Glad to see The Conformist in the top ten. Visually, an exceedingly interesting film.
You can tell this is a cinematographers list. All the President's Men was just one giveaway.

 

Apocalypse Now is a gorgeous, lush looking film.

 

I can't stand lists, in general, but if it gets people talking about the subject with knowledge AND intelligence I'm all for it. This is pretty much what I'd expect from an American contingency. No Ugetsu, no Andrei Rublev, no Santantango, no Apu Triliogy, no Rififi... not a single Dreyer, Bresson, Ozu or Ophuls film listed. And these are just a few few directors known for their visual obsessiveness. Whatever. (Forgive my slight disgust.) Thanks for the post.

 

A couple personal favorites are not on the list: KINGDOM OF HEAVEN and THE NEW WORLD. But since those directors are already represented at least twice, I can't complain. (Yes, I'm aware it's actually a cinematographers' list.)

For awe-inspiring photography, HEAVEN'S GATE should be on there. But that film may be lost to history, as the restored Criterion blu-ray doesn't look very good. I can't tell what's due to deterioration of the original parts and what's Cimino's tampering. For example, the dance inside Heaven's Gate was originally presented in an almost chromatic sepiatone just for that scene, but the scene in blu-ray is normal.

I'm very pleased see THE DUELLISTS on there, Ridley Scott's debut. It didn't find much of an audience in theaters and even the blu-ray is OOP. It was made on the cheap but already featured some signature Scott moves.

 

Those are both from 2005. The list cuts off at 2000.

 

My reading comprehension score adjusted accordingly . . .

 

Yea, just for the park scene.

It is a nice list, thought The Third Man was too low.

 

Blow-Up would have been high in my list (though I haven't seen many deserving films, I'm sure).

I always thought Toland's The Best Years of Our Lives was very well filmed. It seemed to leap from the screen of our TV set when I was a kid, but at the time I had no idea why. I knew nothing about cinematography (deep focus or otherwise).

I also would have put Barry Lyndon and Metropolis higher.

 

Yes, but...what explains, "why"? I mean, obviously they're not "20th Century", but...why limit it?

Do they not trust their own objective opinions, once you get into more recent films other savvy observers could weigh in on?

 

You beat me to the punch on this. Glad I'm not alone.

 

As much as I like North-by-Northwest, there are a few other Hitchcock films (apart from Vertigo) I would rank ahead of it (Suspicion, Spellbound, the Man Who Knew Too Much, Rear Window . . . well, maybe more than just a few).

 

Did I miss...any Tarkovsky? Stalker? Solaris? Kurosawa's later films like Ran, Kagemusha, or Dreams? Lynch's Blue Velvet?

 

There are bound to be omissions to this list of course, but by & large you can't go wrong with any of the movies chosen. I would have loved to see 'Die Hard' shot by cinematographer Jan de Bont make the list, as it is one of my all-time faves shot in Panavision. But then again, I could probably come up with 100 more movies...
Die Hard (1988) / Jan de Bont, ASC - The American Society of Cinematographers

 

I think Die Hard is an excellently-shot movie. My only reaction is, what makes it more of a cinematic triumph, than a film designed to capture the narrative competantly? How are shots blocked to convey emotion, action, and helping the audience see something there any other filmmaker could not have captured? Yes, it's an interesting choice of scenery, but not so much mis-en-scene. According to the script, the plot couldn't have happened without a tall structure in the middle of a modern city at night.

Now if you want to see Bruce Willis in something no other filmmaker could have captured without a specific eye, look at Sin City. Yes, most of this was done on a soundstage, in front of a green screen. With less-than-stellar acting. But, the mono-color layouts, the stylistic action and shot blocking that looks like it came right out of a comic book...is because it came right out of a comic book. Frank Miller drew the entire movie. Wrote it, then drew it, then published it, then won some awards for it...then turned the whole static artwork from a graphic narrative, into cinema. On the basis of the ambition, the surity of his vision, and his ability to turn what was in his eye, into the exact same piece of art, in a totally-different medium. And, mediums that craftwise and ergonomicallly, have nothing to do with one another...yet still resembles one another: one is a collaborative medium produced with teams of artistic professionals, cast and staffed and budgeted and scheduled in order to make the work come off...and the other is some dude, pencil to paper in some lonely studio room, hours and man-hours of singlehanded craftsmanship, taking the responsibility for every artistic choice. Tell me Kurosawa doesn't do the same. Or Miyazaki.

On the basis of Frank Miller's lack of expertise in the film industry alone, I don't believe Sin City belongs on this list. On the basis of what he did accomplish by bringing a whole different type of experience and viewpoint to the film...it belongs on some kind of list, worthy of being recognized and quantified by a society of cinematographers looking to bring attention to different varieties of expertise and triumph.

 

I’ll put this on the watch list for sure.

 

I wouldn't expect French connection but Im glad...the shot of popeye running after the guy dressed as santa (tracking, I think?) the shot of popeye outside the window watching Fernando rey eating....the subway stuff, car chase....really well shot

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



bladerunner seems really, really high to me

 

Yeah. But I can't comment on this one (I've seen every other film on the list). The DVD is sitting on my shelf unwrapped and unviewed - one of maybe two praised films like that in my collection that I've never felt moved to watch. Guess I was waiting for this moment. Tomorrow...