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

The top 10 is fine. 11-100 is an epic fail. Unless I missed it not one film from Antonioni, Melville or Mizoguchi. Excluding Antonioni is inexcusable - arguably the best “visual” director of all time from the standpoint of the photographic beauty of his films. Impeccably shot by the cinematographers he worked with.

 

Dziga Vertov’s Man with a Movie Camera (1929) is a particularly egregious omission from the list. Cinematography was by Mikhail Kaufman.

From Wikipedia:

Man with a Movie Camera is famous for the range of cinematic techniques Vertov invented, deployed or developed, such as multiple exposure, fast motion, slow motion, freeze frames, match cuts, jump cuts, split screens, Dutch angles, extreme close-ups, tracking shots, reversed footage, stop motion animations and self-reflexive visuals (at one point it features a split-screen tracking shot; the sides have opposite Dutch angles).​

 

A bit surprised that Dances With Wolves didn't make the top 100.

 

Agreed that the small number of foreign films on the list is ridiculous, especially considering how many amazingly beautiful and influential films I can think of off the top of my head that clearly belong. However, this list is by the American Society of Cinematographers, so it's only natural that it is an Ameri-centric list.

 

DP Dean Semler did win the Oscar for best cinematography for that film. I'm surprised the ASC didn't automatically pick all the Oscar winners, since there's some very, very fine-looking films on that list.

 

Cinematography?
Apparently this list was chosen for films with outstanding cinematography, `Since the ASC list is specifically focused on outstanding cinematography`.
If that is the case then why is `THE FALL`, not on the list?

 

Lawrence of Arabia truly deserves the top spot. A masterpiece of filmmaking for me.

Anyway, I feel that Erich von Stroheim's "Foolish Wives" (cinematography by William Daniels and Ben Reynolds) could've been included here as well. The opening shot with the roulette wheel spinning round and round was magnificent! The nightly sequences on the cliffs of Monte Carlo possess their own sense of tragic beauty.

 

Yesterday I saw the 1967 Point Blank, shot (brilliantly) by Philip Lathrop. He has to be the most underrated great cinematographer of all time—no mention of him in that list or even in this forum (before this post). He also shot Welles’ Touch of Evil, btw.

 

Oops, sorry. Make that the opening shot of Touch of Evil. Russell Metty did the rest.

 

Great list of films overall.

"Lawrence" is not my favorite film (though it's awesome), but otherwise yours is a perfect assessment.

 

A solid list!

Yes, everyone can say, “What about...” Myself included.

But, I can’t argue with the inclusion of a single film.

 

This is a fantastic list. Picture-for-picture, I think it supersedes the AFI Top 100.

Although I can't really argue with any of its inclusions, I would have liked to have seen Gordon Willis for The Parallax View or James Wong Howe for Seconds get a nod. Small matter, though. It'll be fun trying to watch all the films listed here that I have yet to see.

 

It's just so folks can talk about a movie on a list and use a number. When movies reach a certain level of art and cultural influence, or just artistic attainment, there is no top ten anymore, or if there is it changes by the week. Same with albums, there are those great double albums, and great live albums, and at the top it is pointless to say which is really better.

 

These are all well composed shots, and lighting / exposure is pleasing. But they don't "pop" for me like the other shots from the movies on this list do. Like films of Roger Deakins' work not even on this list.

 

It's just a list, much like groceries. I don't take it too seriously, as it's really only an expressed opinion. YMMV...

 

No Batman?
No Clerks?
No Poseidon Adventure?

Bogus list, man.

 

It's a really good list for cinematography.

 

No, this list was voted on by the 600+ members of the American Society of Cinematographers, and those people carry a bit of cache with decades of experience and awards. It's not like it's a random list thrown together by nutty fans -- it took these DPs months of meetings and debating to narrow down the list and then subject the ones left to a vote. I agree that there are unquantifiable aspects to the list, but at least it's a group of films where you can say, "each of these is extraordinary and worthy of watching just for the lighting and camerawork." It doesn't necessarily mean these are the only films worth watching.

None of those strike me as great in terms of cinematography. The first two weren't nominated for Oscars or ASC awards for cinematography, either. That doesn't mean they weren't good films overall. (I worked on the HD remaster of Poseidon Adventure, and I don't think it was in the same league as Cabaret (which won) or 1776.)

There's about 350 nominated films on the Best Cinematography Oscar list, and many of them are outstanding... but narrowing it down to 100 is a lot more difficult.

Academy Award for Best Cinematography - Wikipedia

Jaws is a really, really fine film on many levels, especially cinematography. But note that it didn't get nominated for an Oscar, so there is that. The ASC only started their own awards back in 1986, and it's very possible Jaws would've been nominated if their award had existed in 1972.

 

That is what I said, each of the films are outstanding in cinematography and that the number an individual film comes in at is if less importance than the fact that it is included - because once a film hits a certain level of artistic attainment - numbers become irrelevant. I did not state that it’s a random list thrown together, read my post again. If 400 people of stature in photography liked one picture the best, and only 389 like another film the best, this just says both films are outstanding according to this group.

I have no beef with the list and never said I did.

 

I wonder which movies & cinematographers will get nominated this year at Oscar-time?

 

Well, it sounded like an objection. My point in posting it was to say, essentially, "hey, if anybody wants an example of some visually beautiful films, check this out." That's it. I get asked all the time, "do you have any suggestions on some great movies I could watch on my new TV?" I'd point to this list. Hard to go wrong with any of them.

I worked on five or six of the AFI "Best Films" specials for CBS, and there were constant discussions of whether assigning a number to any work of art really made sense, whether it kind of reduced the films to just statistics, and whether anybody really cared in the grand scheme of things. But director Gary Smith told me, "at least it gives attention to older films that younger audiences might never have heard of or watched otherwise," plus it gave attention to the AFI, which was a worthy institution. And the shows got big ratings (for about 10 years), so that's something. For the shows I worked on, I thought the lists weren't too bad, particularly the 100 Years... 100 Movies special.

I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, 1917, and The Irishman will at least be nominated. I would lean towards Once Upon a Time for the winner, partly because it was shot on film and that's often a sentimental favorite; it doesn't hurt that the film also looked really, really good.

 

Agreed. Jaws looks really soft and doesn't pop. But I think that's my only complaint

 

'Once Upon A Time in Hollywood' did look great. Richardson hit a homer there, for sure. Gonna try to see '1917' this weekend. Will report back...

 

All of David Lean's epic masterpieces have cinematography at their core.

Movie wise, "Lawrence" is beautifully photographed, but not my favorite movie.

Dr. Zhivago definitely is. It is wonderful to note, that Dr. Zhivago is in the top ten all-time list of movies, adjusted for inflation.

1. Gone With the Wind (1939) ...
2. Star Wars (1977) ...
3. The Sound of Music (1965) ...
4. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) ...
5. Titanic (1997) ...
6. The Ten Commandments (1956) ...
7. Jaws (1975) ...
8. Doctor Zhivago (1965)

The list does clearly illustrate that the moviegoing audiences back then appreciated excellence in movie making, where special effects were not needed to make a great movie.

 

Each of those eight films is something you could characterize as a "spectacle" -- audiences always have thrilled to the visual effects of cinema, as well they should, IMO.

I love "Zhivago" too (and have put off reading the novel too long), though I can't help but remember the line some wag critic had about it: "Does for snow what 'Lawrence' did for sand."