Exciting News (Well, it's News) About My Top 100 List (Actually, I Don't Know that its Necessarily News Either)

From The Godfather which is ranked #5

Exciting news everybody( honestly it's not all that exciting but go on). I've done some revisions to my top 100 films list. Actually that's a lie, the list looks the same, what's different is the list of movies that follow it, those many movies that I love but didn't quite crack the exclusive top 100. Time was (until yesterday) that it was just a haphazard list with films tacked on willy nilly. (Do you suppose there's a gent out there somewhere whose name is Willy Nilly? If so, what's he like?) Now all those films are sorted by directors, the directors appear alphabetically and if there are multiple films under a director they are listed chronologically. 

Full disclosure: ChatGPT did all the work. Thanks, AI! in doing so it came across some interesting facts that I'm going to share with you now whether you want me to or not and I suspect you do because you're a faithful reader of this blog (I'm looking at you Goliath Truffaut of Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin). There are 180 motion pictures on the others that I love list. According to my advanced calculus that, with my top 100, makes 280 flickers. 

The director with the most films on the lists is Woody Allen with 14 followed by Ingmar Bergman 11, John Ford 10, Aki Kaurismäki 10, Alfred Hitchcock 8, Federico Fellini, Howard Hawks, Billy Wilder and Martin Scorsese each have six.

The most represented decade was the 1970s with 42 followed by the 1960s with 34. There were 31 from the 1940s and 29 from the 1930s. Only 19 from the 2000s and five so far from the 2020s.

The four top individual years were all from the 1970s.

Countries with the most films were the U.S. followed by Italy, Sweden, Finland, France and Russia.

It should be noted that my top 100 and films that follow it are not set in stone. Last week I moved No Country For Old Men from somewhere around sixty into my top twenty. My feelings for movies change after additional viewings. Some move up, a few move down and occasionally one is added and another subtracted. Anyway I find it a fun and worthwhile exercise.

What To Do When There are Multiple Versions of a Film, The Blogger Advises on Nine Such Cases

Blackmail by Hitchcock

Something that’s become easy these days is watching a movie. Used to be that you would have to wait for a film to appear in theaters again or worse, hope it showed up on TV.  In which case it would be riddled with commercial breaks — yuck! You had no control. Today you can watch virtually any picture you’ve a mind to. For me, as an example, a film I’m interested in — especially if it’s one I love — could be part of my extensive DVD collection (over 300 titles). It might be available on Netflix, The Criterion Channel, HBO, Hulu, TCM, You Tube, Peacock or Amazon. In the past few years I’ve only come across a handful of movies that I can’t find anywhere. Yes, finding a movie to watch is easy. Unless….

It has multiple versions. Which one to watch? If you’re going to invest two hours in a film it damn well better be the better version of the two or the best version of the five. Let me see if I can help.

As a general rule the “extended cut” or “director’s version” or especially the “extended director’s cut/version” is better. But not always. Often there’s a director’s cut because the suits at the studio thought the film too long and butchered it. Okay, sometimes they didn’t butcher it, but they did take out key scenes. Of course, sometimes studios make cuts that improve a film, the director was over-indulgent. Usually not.

One example is Orson Welles’ The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) Welles. The story is that Welles made a masterpiece. Then he left the country and the studio got a hold of his print and eviscerated it. Welles was mortified and refused to have anything to do with the new version. Sadly, a copy of the original has never been found and may not even exist. The studio version was a very good film. But a very good film is a far cry from a masterpiece. 

Alfred Hitchcock has to be in any discussion of the greatest directors of all time. He made cinematic classics from the silent era through the Sixties. But he also made two absolute clunkers: The Paradine Case and Jamaica Inn. What was different about those two besides the fact that they stunk? The studios re-cut them. When you’re watching one of those films (and I’d advise against it) you’re not truly seeing a Hitchcock film.

I cannot advise you on every film that has multiple versions as there are so many and so many of them are the types of films I don’t watch. Also, in many cases there is no longer more than one available, unless you go to a used DVD store. Streaming services and TV channels don’t tend to offer you more than one version. Understandably.

But I thought it worthwhile for me to offer guidance on a few films that I’m well acquainted with. All are part of my extensive DVD collection (I love saying and writing “my extensive DVD collection.”) I will try avoid telling  you that one is BETTER than the other(s) though it will be, at times, unavoidable. In some cases the differences are a matter of taste and we all have different tastes — or so I’m told.

The Gold Rush (1925) Chaplin. There is the original version that was released in theaters in 1925 and then a 1942 re-release from Chaplin. The latter version includes Chaplin’s narration and is slightly shorter as Chaplin deleted a few scenes, notably ones featuring Georgia Hale, the female lead. In my opinion the narration is unnecessary and the deleted scenes are sorely missed, so I’d strongly recommend the original version. If you appreciate silent films than you’ll definitely favor the original. 

The Big Sleep (1946) Hawks. With my DVD of this great film you choose between the pre-release and theatrical versions. Without going into details, the major difference between the two is that the theatrical version has a greater emphasis on the romance between Bogart and Bacall. The pre-release is more plot heavy. To me, the plot is heavy enough and I dearly love the byplay between the two leads, so I always watch the theatrical version. Either is fine but I think the general consensus —if it matters to you, is that the romantic focus is essential to the film.

Fanny and Alexander (1982) Bergman. Here’s a case in which I’m going to say one version is far superior to the other. There is a theatrical version of Fanny and Alexander and the TV version. Watching the theatrical version is — in my humble opinion — just plain silly. Think of it this way, imagine watching three episodes of Breaking Bad edited into one episode. Fanny and Alexander was meant for TV, when you reduce its 320 minutes to 188 minutes you’re cutting down it to and into the bone. It’s silly that they even thought to make a theatrical version. Fanny and Alexander (the full version) is one of the great gems of cinema — even if it was originally for TV.

Das Boot (1981) Peterson. To me this a case of three bears where one of three is “just right” — the middle one. There is the first U.S. theatrical version which is 149 minutes. Too short. There is original German TV mini-series which is 282 minutes. Too long. Finally there is the director’s cut which is 208 minutes. Just right. Indeed the director’s cut is, for me one of the great films of all time. The other two versions are fine and if you love the story as I do watching all three isn’t a bad idea, I think if you do, you’ll settle on the director’s cut as the best of the three.

Blade Runner (1982) R. Scott. There have been four versions. The original U.S, theatrical version and the International version are probably pretty hard to find these days, which is just as well as they are not highly regarded. I don’t believe I’m over-stepping when I say that I’d not bother. Both feature voice over narration which is totally unnecessary and indeed distracting. Worse, they also feature a studio-imposed happy ending that maybe doesn’t ruin the film but doesn’t fit with its general tone. That leaves you with the two director’s versions, one from 1992 and the other from 2007. The latter was fully controlled by the director Ridley Scott and is the one that you’re most likely to come across today. Frankly I don’t know why anyone would bother with any other version but feel free to check out the others.

Apocalypse Now (1979) Coppola. Here’s the big one. Cinephiles are divided between the original version and Apocalypse Now Redux. The difference between the two is the added scenes in Redux which lengthen the film by fifteen minutes. I’ve read that more people like the original because it is tighter and gets to the crux of the film faster. I like the Redux better because to me it expands the story to include a bit more history and an exploration of imperialism and colonialism. I’d never get into an argument about which version is better. The best thing to do — if you really like the film — is watch them both. I have and…well, you know what I think.

Andrei Rublev (1966) Tarkovsky. This is an easy one. There is an original 203 minute cut and the director-approved version, which is twenty-two minutes shorter. The second time I watched Andrei Rublev, unlike the first time, I found myself a bit bored at times. When it was over I realized I’d watched the longer version by mistake. The third time I watched I was sure to watch the shorter version. I wasn’t bored for a second. That’s all I’ve got to say on the matter other than that you should feel free to watch the longer version, as opinions may differ.

Blackmail (1929) Hitchcock. There is a silent version and a talking version of this great film. It was made as studios were transitioning to sound, hence the two takes. I much prefer the silent version. Early talkies were not great and this is an example. Sound was just being developed for use in films and actors weren’t yet comfortable with it. This comes across in Blackmail. Also Blackmail is powerful in large part because of the striking visuals, these are emphasized more in the silent version. If you don’t like silents then by all means watch the talkie version, otherwise I’d strongly recommend the silent version.

Touch of Evil (1958) Welles. There are three versions. The original theatrical version (93 minutes), The Preview Version (108) minutes and the 1998 reconstruction (111 minutes). I’m not going to tell you outright which one to watch but I’ll say that the first version was butchered by the studio. The second version restores much of Welles’ vision. The third restores even more of it and eliminates the upbeat score that accompanies the opening tracking shot in the other versions. I don’t believe anyone prefers the originally released version and most prefer the last version — as do I. But the second version has it’s supporters, mostly people who like original score and think the third has awkward sound edits. I believe the opening scene needs to be seen without the score and with the ambient street noises as in version three.

If there’s anything else I can help you with please drop a line. 

Chat GPT Analyzes My Cinematic Tastes and Does a Very Good Job

His Girl Friday (1940) Hawks

Like many people I’m wary of ChatGPT and other forms of AI. But I do find it helpful in research and I’ve also had some interesting “conversations” with it. Yesterday I fed it my top 100 films and asked what these films taken together say about my tastes in film.*

It replied: “You’ve put together a serious cinephile list—and it’s unusually coherent. A lot of  ‘Top 100’ lists wander stylistically, but yours reveals several very clear preferences about storytelling, tone, and cinematic tradition.”

I took that as a compliment. But of course there was more: “You Strongly Prefer Director-Driven Cinema. This may be the single most obvious pattern.Many directors appear multiple times:

Ingmar Bergman – 6 films

Woody Allen – 5 films

Federico Fellini – 4 films

Alfred Hitchcock – 5 films

Scorsese – 4 films

Kubrick – 3 films

Coen Brothers – 3 films

Ford – 3 films

Tarantino – 3 films

Rossellini – 2

Chaplin – 2

De Sica – 2

Kaurismäki – 3

This tells me something important: You don’t think of movies as isolated works—you think in terms of a director’s worldview. That’s how critics and serious film lovers tend to watch films. You are basically practicing auteur cinema appreciation.”

Still spot on. What else? 

“You Value Moral and Existential Seriousness. Your list leans heavily toward films wrestling with: moral responsibility, guilt, faith, existential loneliness and historical trauma.

Examples:

Winter Light

The Seventh Seal

Persona

Through a Glass Darkly

Come and See

Au Revoir Les Enfants

Battle of Algiers

Taxi Driver

Raging Bull

A Woman Under the Influence

You clearly like films where characters face spiritual or ethical crises, not just plot problems. This aligns perfectly with your admiration for Bergman, Scorsese, and Dostoevskian themes.”

You’re nailing it. Tell me more.

“A surprising amount of your list has a bittersweet or mournful tone. Examples:

The Last Picture Show

Inside Llewyn Davis

Manhattan

Drive My Car

The Ice Storm

Picnic at Hanging Rock

Barry Lyndon

Umberto D

Bicycle Thieves

Local Hero

Even your comedies are melancholy comedies. This is extremely characteristic of people who love:

Bergman

Allen

Kaurismäki

Antonioni

You like films where life feels fragile, fleeting, and slightly sad.”

Couldn’t agree more. But do go on….

“You Love Classic Hollywood Craft. Despite loving art cinema, you deeply appreciate the golden age. Major presence of:

Hawks

Ford

Wilder

Capra

Hitchcock

Sturges

Cukor

Curtiz

And films like:

His Girl Friday

Casablanca

The Lady Eve

Holiday

The Big Sleep

This tells me something key: You’re not an elitist art-house viewer. You appreciate great storytelling regardless of era or prestige.”

Okay, let’s have the rest of it:

“You Favor Character Studies Over Plot Machines Notice what is largely absent:

superhero films

spectacle franchises

puzzle-box movies

action blockbusters

Instead you love films where the entire movie is about a person. Examples:

Raging Bull

Taxi Driver

Barry Lyndon

A Woman Under the Influence

Inside Llewyn Davis

Drive My Car

Umberto D

Persona

Your taste says:

Character psychology is more important than narrative mechanics.

You Love European Cinema A massive portion of your list is European. Especially:

Sweden

Bergman

Troell

Italy

Fellini

Rossellini

De Sica

France

Malle

Denis

Kassovitz

Finland

Kaurismäki

Poland

Polanski

Russia

Tarkovsky

Germany

Murnau

You gravitate toward philosophical cinema rather than purely narrative cinema.

You Appreciate Humor With Intelligence Your comedy choices are very telling:

Duck Soup

Sullivan’s Travels

The Lady Eve

My Man Godfrey

His Girl Friday

The Big Lebowski

Rushmore

These are fast, literate comedies. You prefer:

wit

irony

social observation

over broad humor.

You Are Comfortable With Slow Cinema Your list includes films that many viewers struggle with:

Stalker

L’Eclisse

Beau Travail

Drive My Car

Barry Lyndon

This means you value:

mood

visual language

pacing

You don’t need constant plot movement.

You Like Films About Artists or Storytellers Another subtle pattern. Examples:

8½

Inside Llewyn Davis

Manhattan

Sunset Boulevard

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

These are films about creative people trying to understand their lives.

Not surprising given you’re a novelist.

You Like Moral Ambiguity Many of your favorite films center on ethically compromised characters:

Goodfellas

Chinatown

Taxi Driver

Match Point

No Country for Old Men

Barry Lyndon

You seem drawn to stories where: The line between right and wrong becomes blurry.

That’s very consistent with the themes you’ve discussed in your own writing.

One Particularly Interesting Thing Your list balances three traditions beautifully:

1. Classic Hollywood craft
(Hawks, Ford, Wilder)

2. European philosophical cinema
(Bergman, Antonioni, Tarkovsky)

3. American New Hollywood
(Scorsese, Coppola, Ashby)

That combination is the core canon of serious film culture.

If I Had to Summarize Your Taste in One Sentence

You favor director-driven films that explore moral, psychological, and existential questions through strong characters, often with a tone of melancholy and intelligence.”

The discussion went on from there but I’ll add one more observation from my artificially intelligent friend: 

“One more thing I noticed that’s fascinating about your list:

Your #1 film — His Girl Friday — is tonally the opposite of almost everything else in your top ten. Yet it actually reveals something deep about your taste.

If you want, I can explain why that choice makes perfect sense psychologically with the rest of your list. It’s actually quite revealing.

Your choice of #1 — His Girl Friday initially looks like an outlier. Most of your top films are serious, contemplative, or tragic. Hawks’s film is the opposite: fast, funny, cynical, and light on the surface.

But when you look more carefully, it actually fits your taste perfectly.

Here’s why.

1. You Like Intelligence Above Everything

The defining trait of His Girl Friday is intelligence.

The dialogue moves faster than almost any film ever made. Characters succeed through:

wit

verbal dexterity

quick thinking

That same trait appears throughout your list:

Chinatown

The Big Lebowski

Annie Hall

Rushmore

Your films often feature sharp, observant protagonists navigating complicated worlds.

2. Cynicism Mixed With Humanity

His Girl Friday is deeply cynical about institutions:

politics

journalism

the justice system

That worldview runs all through your list:

Chinatown

Taxi Driver

No Country for Old Men

The Battle of Algiers

You clearly like films that say:

The world is flawed, but human beings still struggle within it.

3. Dialogue as Music

You respond strongly to language-driven cinema.

Many of your favorites are talk-heavy films:

My Dinner with Andre style filmmaking (even though it’s not on your list)

The Last Picture Show

Manhattan

Drive My Car

His Girl Friday is essentially pure dialogue cinema.

4. Moral Ambiguity

Walter Burns (Cary Grant) is charming—but ethically slippery.

That morally complicated protagonist appears constantly in your list:

Barry Lyndon

Match Point

Goodfellas

You seem fascinated by people who are brilliant but morally questionable.

5. It’s the Pure Joy Film on Your List

Almost all great cinephile lists contain one film chosen for sheer delight.

For you, that appears to be His Girl Friday.

Even viewers who love:

Bergman

Tarkovsky

Antonioni

often keep a few films around that simply make them happy every time.”

Thank you very much for your insights ChatGPT. You’ve affirmed a lot of what I thought of myself as a film lover and also given me insights into why I revere certain films, certain types of films and particular directors. Good chat!

*(Please note my comments in italics are for this blog post and were not included in the actual chat.)