eating cucumbers without permission...

In 1952, Sight and Sound magazine followed up a Belgian poll of directors’ favourite films with a similar referendum, this time for critics. The result was sixty-odd top-ten lists and an aggregate “ten best films”, with Vittorio De Sica’s Bicycle Thieves coming in at number one.

The poll would be of relatively little interest if it had ended there, but it was repeated in 1962 — and 1972, 1982, 1992, 2002… Collected, the lists show the evolution of the cinematic canon (or at least the critical zeitgeist, which may not be precisely the same thing) over the last half-century. For example: 1962 saw Citizen Kane move to first position, where it’s stayed ever since, but in 1952 it shared thirteenth. Ten years later, it was even further in front.

I suppose that watching items move up and down lists is only of interest to a certain kind of person, but that kind of person is me. It’s annoyed me no end that so many of the websites collecting lists of greatest films only provide the S&S aggregate top tens: those by individual critics offer much greater variety, as well as scope for more interesting statistical projects.

To that end, now that I’ve dug up the original magazines, here they are in full (or close to it):

• 1952
• 1962
• 1972
• 1982
• 1992 critics / 1992 directors

The BFI has graciously put all of the 2002 results online already.

Not every list was published in the magazine, though from 1962 onwards the effort was made. I haven’t included the comments, many to the effect of “you bastards, how can I pick just ten?”

There’s a remarkable range of creative interpretations of the words “top ten films”. Some included twelve or fifteen. Some included single entries like “The Apu Trilogy” (really three films), “Chaplin’s Mutual films” (more than ten), and in one case “Anthology of the works of W. C. Fields” (more than thirty). Some picked small extracts — like a single musical number — over films entire. One picked a specific, unreleased cut, subsequently destroyed by re-editing. Some sent in lists of directors.

Note on accuracy

Please forgive any missing diacritics: the OCR was hard on them, and I’m willing to sacrifice a cedilla here and an acute there to save time. All other corrections are welcome.