More good films to watch - oh, if only there was more time….  I’m glad to see the inclusion of “The Iron Giant” it is one of my family’s favorite movies and my kids can ‘do’ Hogarth’s java rant (“if they’d just DO THEIR STUPID HOMEWORK”) with precision.

What’s not to like about Amadeus, Steven?

@ George: Too many notes.

What’s not to like about Amadeus? too many notes.

Apocalypse Now does not belong on any list of films worth watching. It is a tedious travelogue that degenerates into incoherent drivel while distorting the historical events it purports to portray, using every Hollywood military stereotype of the time along the way. The characters are caricatures and the acting in key roles, especially by Marlon Brando, is pompously self-absorbed. Martin Sheen does provide a few scenes of excellent acting, but he wasted his time, talent and health, on this film. Only the scenery, provided by the Philippines, standing in for Vietnam, is worth watching.

Where is Ben-Hur? I love that movie!

“Too many notes.” My favorite line from the film Amadeus. Great comment Steven. You gave me my good morning chuckle.

I’ve seen “Blue” (part of the colors trilogy) and I think it has no place on such a list. I’ll be honest: I think it’s trash. I have such distaste for it that I’ve never been able to force myself to watch Decalogue, which I’m told is better.

I’ve also seen “The Apostle”, “Vozvrachenie”, and “Spirited Away.” I agree they’re good. But…

How can they be on there, when none of “Glory”, “Black Robe”, nor “The Mission” are on there? Are you people serious?

At least “Ostrov” is on there.

(Nothing against any of the other films, some of which I love a lot!)

 
Nothing? I seem to remember reading that you’re not a fan of There Will be Blood.
 
However, I can’t criticize the list. Rather, I can only take it as a reminder of how ignorant and uncultured I really am. I’ve seen only THREE of the hundred films on the list, and only one (A Man for all Seasons) of the 34 recurring ones. It seems I have some work to do…

FWIW, previous iterations of the A&F list have included Ben-Hur and The Mission. It’s possible that we’ve included Black Robe and Glory; I don’t remember.
 
There are several ways of viewing or using a list like this. In my opinion, the most misguided approach is to scan the list for one’s own “canonical” films and then dismiss the list if they aren’t there.
 
No film is so worthy that it “has” to be on a list or the list is invalidated. For every film on every film list in the world, there may be five, ten or even more titles that could just as well have been included. Taking the absence of certain films as a ground for asking “Are you people serious?” thus strikes me as a fundamentally unserious approach. We have been having this conversation for up to a dozen years. We are quite serious, I assure you.
 
The presence of films one objects to may be a more notable objection; however, this should be tempered by an appreciation of the range of thoughtful opinions and approaches that different people may bring to the table. One should bear in mind that one’s own negative opinion on a film—for example, my negative opinion on Amadeus—is not the be-all and end-all of reasonable, well-informed opinion.
 
Of course, a pattern of films one objects to may suggest that the list represents a milieu too different from one’s own to be trusted or useful. Still, a useful list may well be a list that to some extent challenges my preconceptions or takes positions outside my own established opinions. Even if I never agree about several of the films on a given list, the list as a whole may still be useful and valuable.
 
The best service that a list like this can provide is to help one discover worthy films one might otherwise have overlooked, or potentially even to help one reconsider and discover new value in films one may previously have dismissed. This does require establishing some level of credibility, so it’s reasonable to try to form an opinion of the list based on whatever one does know of the films included. But it should be a general opinion, not an opinion based on the inclusion or exclusion of a few films.
 
P.S. @ Pachyderminator: Yes indeed, I am no fan of There Will Be Blood! By “Nothing against the other films” I meant only that I didn’t want readers to infer any slight to any particular films that I didn’t mention.
 
And yes! You have some work to do!

Good point! My apologies for the overreaction.

@ Jack: My apologies for my overreaction.

I can’t believe “Ben-Hur” wasn’t included.  One of the best films ever made in my opinion.  What have you got against it?

Let me follow up a moment, starting with the question: Is this a list of what the voters at Arts & Faith think are the best films, full stop? or the best films relating to, or informed by, faith? That distinction isn’t clear to me, and if it’s the former, then I really am an idiot.

With that out of the way: I want to take back my apology slightly. If you start the article saying that this year’s list is “an improvement” and “possibly the best ever”, I don’t see how you can legitimately take me to task that it’s a terrible list, especially if one reason for the reaction is precisely due to changes. :-) I mean, an increase in English-speaking films does not strike me as a serious reason the list has improved.

Finally (honest!), let me clarify that I was not offended that certain films were not on the list, but that they were omitted in favor of films that strike me as being much, much lower in quality—not of filmmaking, but of material relevant to faith, even if implicitly. I hope that might explain my strong objection.

@ Kathy: Are you yanking my chain? Please see my diatribe a couple of comments up.
 
For the record, I like Ben-Hur, but I think it’s a very good film, not a great one. I don’t at all mind its absence on this list.
 
I’m more disappointed about having dropped The Song of Bernadette, which just made last year’s list, but didn’t make the cut this year. That’s a shame, IMO.

Jack: You’re not an idiot. The list used to be called the Arts & Faith Top 100 Spiritually Significant Films, which clearly indicated the relevance of spiritual concerns, though some voters objected that “spiritual significance” could mean all sorts of things. Last year we decided that the name “Arts & Faith” by itself implied that both arts and faith are relevant to the list, but we leave it up to voters to decide for themselves how to apply the concept of arts and faith.
 
Anyone is welcome to make an argument that it’s a terrible list. I just think that “You guys didn’t include movie X” is an unserious argument. A criterion I take more seriously is some measure of comprehensiveness of scope or breadth. Are there selections from all different periods in film history, from countries all over the world, in a satisfying range of genres? Have we limited ourselves to art films, or do we take popular films seriously too? Is it a list only for grownups, or are family films considered also? How well is the scope of the human condition represented? Are there films about men and women, young and old, people who are happy and unhappy, rich and poor, etc?
 
In that vein, the comparative dearth on last year’s list of Golden Age Hollywood films and of English language films generally does strike me as a limitation that I’m happy to see ameliorated this year. I think that’s a serious criterion.
 
Another reason, like I said, is that for a list to be relevant and helpful to people, there has to be at least some level of overlap with what they already connect with, as well as selections that stretch and challenge. A list with very few English titles is a list that many people will find too inaccessible for them. That doesn’t make it a bad list, but I’m happy to see us include more films that many non-cinephiles will identify with, in part because I think it will help them make the stretch to try something else.

Well, let’s see…
 
It seems there are no Spike Lee films on the list. What do you all have against him? Is the Arts & Faith group racist?
 
No Jackie Chan or Jet Li films - I can’t believe you all don’t appreciate the beauty of eastern martial arts.
 
The Gospel According to Matthew is there, but not The Gospel of John. What a bunch of synoptic chauvinists. Your lack of Johannine Christology makes it hard to take the list seriously on a theological level.
 
The likes of Babe, Charlotte’s Web and so forth are missing - what do you have against pigs? Is this a sign of Judaizing legalism?
 
Seriously though, like Jack, I find myself wondering about the standards used for this kind of list. If “comprehensiveness” is considered desirable in itself, the implication would seem to be that inferior - still excellent, but inferior - movies might be deliberately included over superior ones just to fill up a quota of Hollywood/family/“accessible”/genre films. In our egalitarian age, I’m sure many people are tempted to take as an article of faith that movies of all genres and places of origin are equally likely to be worthy, lasting, and spiritually significant, but I don’t find that self-evident.
 
For example, SDG remarked in his article on the Vatican film list that the almost complete absence of Hollywood films in the religion category - and the “almost” seems to be there only because of a reluctance to “snub Hollywood entirely in the area of religion” - was “a striking indictment of the American film industry.” As an American, I find this unfortunate. However, surely part of the role of such lists is to make such indictments (and corresponding commendations elsewhere) in order to make clear where art is thriving and where it needs work. But this is only possible if inclusion on the list is made strictly a function of voters’ best judgments on the worthiness of the films, not considerations of politics or even accessibility. Otherwise, we are affirming Batman’s highly dubious assertion that “sometimes the truth isn’t good enough” for people.
 
One of the few musicals on the list is Fiddler on the Roof. SDG has pronounced Singin’ in the Rain the greatest musical of all time. Presumably this means he would consider the latter a better choice than the former, and yet I find myself doubting that. A possible answer is that Fiddler on the Roof is more “spiritually significant” (the Decent Films Guide gives it only three and a half stars while Singin’ in the Rain has four, but a +3 moral/spiritual rating while Singin’ in the Rain has a neutral 0. However, this raises the question: why does greatness as a musical not correspond with spiritual greatness? Is it possible that musicals are intrinsically less worthy than movies of other kinds? What about comedies and action movies? If these are less likely, just by virtue of being what they are, to be spiritually or artistically notable, that has implications for the best way to approach film in general. But those implications will not be seen if inclusivity becomes an end in itself.

@ Pachyderminator:
 
Thanks for the thoughtful cross-examination. It is a pretty white list (in part because we are a pretty white group), and that is a limitation that we’d like to redress, and we’ve had a number of discussions around that.
 
I think you’re off base when you try to hang me on the horns of a dilemma, between either engaging in cinematic affirmative action by way of picking less worthy films for the sake of diversity, or else embracing relativistic cultural equivalence. I don’t see that I am at all entangled with either of those approaches.
 
If we disagree about whether a certain film belongs on a list or not, that is a meaningful disagreement—and I certainly do agree that lists like this can and should deliver meaningful indictments where they are warranted. In that sense, I agree that the general absence of religious Hollywood films from the Vatican film list is warranted—though I wish they’d chosen The Song of Bernadette instead of Ben-Hur.
 
That said, though, once you start getting into debates over which of two outstanding films is more deserving (as opposed to whether a given film is deserving), things can get really subjective. Certainly it would be a mistake to imagine all the films in the world being numerically ranked (by whatever criteria) from 1 to infinity, and then dipping down into the top 500 or as low as necessary in order to redress imbalances in the absolute top 100. It doesn’t work that way. It’s why I don’t even like to rank movies from 1 to 10, let alone with half points. Who can say whether a certain film is a 7 or a 7.5?
 
If someone had to pick the two best wines on the market, we might not be surprised if they both came from the same country, or even the same region. If someone had to pick the 100 best wines on the market, and all of them (or nearly all) came from the same country, we would suspect he wasn’t casting his net wide enough. Likewise, if your list of the 100 best wines were all dry reds (or mostly all dry reds), then that probably says more about you than about the wines.
 
I’m flattered at the specific knowledge of one of my oldest reviews (Singin’ in the Rain, but don’t squint too hard at the ratings, it isn’t worth the eyestrain! Both films are eminently deserving, and I’d be about equally happy with either of them.
 
The issues behind the question you raise, “why does greatness as a musical not correspond with spiritual greatness?” is precisely why we stopped calling it the Top 100 Spiritually Significant Films. We decided that “Arts & Faith” expressed our outlook and predilections, and let the voters choose how to apply them.

How about Marty?

One of the best movies to showcase “Love your neighbor” is the Japanese movie “Departures”.  Very moving, very gentle, very tender.  I have seen lots of movies, this one is exceptional.

Thanks for the detailed response. If you want to improve the racial diversity of the list, that’s fine, but I assure you my Spike Lee comment was no more serious than the one about pigs/legalism.

@ Pachyderminator: I’m happy to report that I took your facetiousness for granted (though I appreciate your wanting to make the point; the topic is super-charged enough that humor in this area is often taken the wrong way, though I didn’t take it the wrong way here).
 
Yes, I’d like to see more diversity of several kinds, including more racial diversity, in our list. Not because of political correctness, but because too much sameness is a weakness rather than a strength. If you were picking ten desert island movies (or books, or whatever), you would probably think long and hard about how to include movies or books for as many different moods and viewing experiences as possible. Variety is a key component to robustness and resilience.
 
I treasure movies that tell me about the world I know, who I am, where I come from. But I also treasure movies that show me not only what I know but what I don’t know. I treasure movies that show me places I’ve never been, cultures I’ve never experienced, ways of life I would never otherwise have known, people I would never otherwise have met.
 
Precisely by showing me what I don’t know, they help me understand and appreciate better who I am. We see things better by contrast. I man who has traveled abroad has a perspective on his own culture that is unavailable to his neighbor who never left home, just as a person who learns other languages has insights into the particular character of his own language that he would not have had otherwise.
 
Such experiences of the other may help us better appreciate the positive attributes our own milieu, or they may make us more critical of our native defects and flaws, or both. Either way, they enlarge and enrich one’s being.
 
And, of course, the more diverse the list, the more universal it is. We don’t want our list to be “Top 100 Arts & Faith Films For White People.”

@SDG, I guess, in replying to Pachyderminator, you mean to say that you want your list to be catholic.;)

@ William Farley: Why didn’t I think to say that? Especially since I have often quoted the passage in the 1971 pastoral instruction Communio et Progressio that speaks about developing “a truly catholic taste” in artistic expression, and explains what that means:
 

“The media of social communication do more than present the traditional forms of artistic expression; they themselves create new ones. And now that the media cover the whole earth and multiply the opportunities for international cultural cooperation, especially in co-productions using the talents of artists from many nations, it is only right that both communicators and recipients should seek to acquire a truly catholic taste, one that includes both the traditional and the latest forms of artistic expression, one that appreciates and understands the production of all nations, of all cultures and of all sub-cultures within the same areas of civilization.”

@SDG, thanks. I enjoy using the term in the appropriate context, especially since it often brings a look of confusion on the faces of those who have only heard of the word in relation to the Catholic Church. In considering, taste and returning to the original topic of the list of films, if “truth is beauty, and beauty truth,” then I further state my case that Apocalypse Now does not belong on any list of films worth watching. The film is false on so many levels, that it cannot be considered as attaining to any form of beauty.

@ William Farley: Not only was Keats right about true being beauty and beauty truth, but truth, beauty and goodness are all ultimately different facets of the same transcendent reality: “refractions, as it were, across the prism of consciousness, of the boundless realm of being, which extends beyond man, in whom they actuate an ever more extensive participation in Being itself” (Pius XII, Apostolic Exhortation to representatives of the Italian film industry (on the “ideal film”), 1955).
 
I am not the one to make the case for or against Apocalypse Now. It is one of many landmark films that I must confess I’ve never even seen (as a whole, at least). I am confident, though, that a much more positive valuation of the film than yours is at least within the scope of what I would consider reasonable opinion. There are a great many films that I don’t think a reasonable argument could be made for at all, but I have enough confidence in my fellow voters to stipulate that Apocalypse Now is not one of them. There are films on our list that I voted against including (Amadeus is one), but I recognize that that there are arguments the other way that are at least worth considering and engaging, and that a thoughtful discussion about Apocalypse Now or Amadeus could potentially be as fruitful as a discussion of almost any other film on the list. That doesn’t mean they belong on the list, but the view that they do is one I respect and take seriously.

@SDG, I am willing to concede that there is room for discussion regarding the merits of films, including Apocalypse Now. Obviously, there are some who consider Apocalypse Now worthy of appearing on this particular list. I would be very interested to read their arguments in favor of the listing. I believe the film was originally given favorable attention because of the star power of the actors and the producer/director involved, and because it fit the political stereotype of the time. These same considerations led to the film receiving several industry accolades and may continue to affect the opinions of contemporary reviewers. However, I still contend that Coppola set out to make an epic but found himself swamped with acres of film footage that he cobbled together into a semi-coherent travelogue. I don’t think you’ve missed anything by not having seen this film in its entirety.

Seeing this for the first time, I assume Mel Gibson’s “The Passion” made this list at one time, but not this year? AS far as the APOCALYPSE NOW debate, maybe its dated. Growing up (20’s) in the Seventies, Coppola captured something with the film that can only be as surreal as that WAR was. Of course it is narssistic, that was the zeitgeist. That is why it endures even if dated.

Russ Farrell makes a good point when he wonders why Mel Gibson’s “The Passion” is not in the list. This is one film that not only sold out theaters, but also brought Catholics and Protestants together and sparked public discussion of and interest in the Life of Christ. In addition, I know many families who purchased copies of the film and make a point of watching it each year during Lent, so that the film has a lasting legacy. Surely, such a film should be on this list.
As for “Apocalypse Now” capturing something surreal “as the WAR was”, I can only say that Mr. Farrell makes my point. The Vietnam War was only surreal in the stereotype produced by Hollywood and popular media. For those actually involved in it, the war was very real, and films of the “Apocalypse Now” variety very offensive.

Hi! I’ve just recently registered at the arts and faith forum website, so I’m still scanning through the previous lists. I haven’t watched most of the movies that made the arts and faith top 100 films list, and I’m just wondering what film you would highly recommend for me to watch? Thanks.

This is a more secular pick, but AS St. Paul says - “there will be a con
versation in Heaven…” Conversion comes from this same root, as well as
“University”, Which Blessed? John Henry Cardinal Newman speaks of in the Idea of a University… A Film by Louis Malle 1981? MY DINNER WITH ANDRE.