List Logic

It's that time of year again and top ten lists of the year's best movies are showing up everywhere. Everybody loves lists. They're simple, they rarely offer any thoughtful writing, and they rank the 10 best movies so that people know what to see, that they haven't already. Some years, there are far more than 10 movies worth mentioning, but too bad for them. It sounds like I might be against such lists, but that is not the case.

I bring this up because critic Roger Ebert has rebelled against the system this year. Instead of posting the normal list, he refused to rank films. His list is a top 20 in alphabetical order. Good for him, right? Ranking films isn't the best way to celebrate cinema, but I believe he has made a mistake. I agree it's silly to rank films but it is necessary to draw people's attention. By making an alphabetical top 20 he has removed the emphasis from any of the movies. Now, it's just a list of movies he really likes, and no one will be as compelled to check out his number one, two or even ten (even though ten is the lowest, simply by being numbered it draws more attention). His list will still have an influence because of his deserved popularity, but if this became a trend amongst all critics, I fear many people would lose some interest.

The top ten list is a means to get anyone, even the most casual of moviegoers to see what deserves to be seen. Even if a hypothetical #11 is just as great as 10, 9 and 8, the top ten list is still important. It is unfair to number 11, yes, but that's the price of grabbing the attention of a reader skimming through a newspaper. Many critics have a method of getting around this. I, like many, have an "honourable mentions" portion that alphabetically lists other great movies. I know it's not as influential, but at least the worthy get mentioned. So I do believe in the top ten list, but one of it's biggest flaws is that for most critics, it loses some relevance. Opinions change, two years later one realizes their number 9 should have been number 3. This is a bit silly. Really, ranking is the method with the greatest impact, but it shouldn't be read into too deeply.

For example, I will post my top ten list from last year, followed by a revised list to see how much has changed in a year.

My top ten list from 2007:

1. Juno
2. Ratatouille
3. There Will Be Blood
4. Superbad
5. Once
6. Hot Fuzz
7. Knocked Up
8. No Country For Old Men
9. Into The Wild
10. Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead/The Savages (Tie)

Honorable mentions…
4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days, Away From Her, The Darjeeling Limited, Eastern Promises, Rescue Dawn, Zodiac

Now, here is a revised list of how I feel now:

1. Juno
2. Ratatouille
3. Once
4. There Will Be Blood
5. No Country For Old Men
6. The Darjeeling Limited
7. Rescue Dawn
8. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days
9. Into The Wild
10. Knocked Up

Honourable Mentions…
Away From Her, Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead, Hot Fuzz, The Savages, Superbad, Zodiac

Now, there have been some changes of course, but there isn't a single movie in the top ten or honourable mentions list that wasn't there before. Only the order has changed. This wont always be the case. Ten years from now I might discover a brilliant obscure 2007 picture that makes Juno look like What Happens In Vegas. Whatever. It doesn't matter. My goal, which was to put emphasis on the year's best movies was accomplished. The order has since changed but it's the same movies I wanted to honour in the first place. Top ten lists are important, and should continue to be an end of year event. As long as people take them as a semi-serious guide of what to see, but not a serious guide to which 2007 great movie was better than another 2007 great movie. Just see them both. Please.


All lists published on the Bronze can be found here