Independent Film History Institute

** Attention, The BFI provides a list of all the voters, just 2% of the names are known, the other 98% on the list are people who are as unknown as myself, who are critics on Rotten Tomatoes or have written irrelevant articles on WordPress, people who are nobodies, some work as programmers, technicians or work for BFI, even the Director’s list is full of Directors whom just their mama knows about, what is a programmer?!**.

– 34 people of over a thousand plus human beings voted ‘Dielman’ as the greatest film of all time, In a day that will live in infamy, some of those 34 critics are Programmers, video editors, they also voted for Toy story 2 and Fight Club as greatest films of all time (Are you fucking serious?!) and from just a bunch of women in the over a thousand list (there are no less than 60 women in the whole ballot, I counted them one by one)…half a dozen voted for ‘Dielman’, all this info is provided by the BFI website, the method in wich the list is counted for has tremendous flaws: Let’s say i feel that i liked ‘Police Academy’ then with just a bunch of minor votes, ‘Police Academy’ now ranks probably 10th in the poll, that happened with Dielman, Scorsese or Woody allen did not vote for Dielman, Even Bogdanovich when he was alive never voted for Dielman (previous years) if you see who voted for Akerman’s film you will ask yourself: “Who the fuck are these people?!” And they unconsciously voted for Dielman in a lucky manner, it was just 34 votes and now that film surpasses Vertigo as the greatest.

Critics, video editors and programmers have Zero knowledge of cinema history, yes, they know how shit works but their brains lack the knowledge of a film historian. They chose Akerman’s film ‘Dielman’ as the greatest film ignoring that Akerman’s entire cinematic oeuvre is influenced by Yasujiro Ozu (In simple terms: Steady camera, long shot, scenes shot from different angles with different cameras without moving an inch) and you know what? the directors knew because the directors are also historians by theory (Tarantino, Scorsese, Spielberg, Bogdanovich RIP, ETC….) and they know and as a cinema historian myself i know that Akerman’s style wouldn’t have been possible without the immense influence of Ozu which means that the list from now on will be based on Favoritism rather than uniqueness.

The whole purpose of a list is to require a film to be unique in aesthetic, uniqueness and montage wich differentiate the film itself from other films, ‘Dielman’ is the only film in the list that looks like another film in the list, that’s why they are called “Greatest films of all time”, because they are suppose to be the best of the best, even the best of the greatest, which doesn’t mean just how well written they are, it means everything… while some films are not unique they also have immense praise, it happens, for example: Pulp Fiction, BUT the film itself adds an amalgamation of other films into its own aesthetic, called a “copy and paste from other sources”, Tarantino’s Film is unique in its own form, because the movies which it was influenced by (Blaxploitation films, Crime films), were not like Pulp Fiction, on the other hand, Akerman’s filmography look and sound like any Ozu Film. ‘Dielman’ might seem Unique at first sight and sound but it has too much from Ozu’s Style. it’s an exact “Copy and paste” of Yasujiro Ozu’s own Aesthetic and montage techniques, Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction had his own Aesthetic and Montage style, also let’s not forget that the whole purpose of ‘The French New wave’ was to imitate what they watched (Godard did it imitating the american Film Noir genre, but we know godard and Truffaut didn’t just imitate what they watched, they did their own thing, using minimal influence in the aesthetic) Akerman was a fierce cinephile (and professor) and it’s impossible that she did not watch any Ozu films, of course she watched all of them.

One Voter in the BFI is a man named Wally Hammond, he is said to be “A Critic”, BFI will just approve anybody, many Critics are Programmers or Work for the BFI (which means they are not even critics, they just…work there)…. If there’s a list you must ignore, that’s the BFI-Variety-rotten tomatoes-Letterboxd-some random newspaper’s Sight and sound list, Instead, you must check the Director’s list (people who knows cinema). Akerman is a great director but nobody can tell me that her film is superior than Vertigo, Citizen Kane, Tokyo Story (with the later surprisingly enough was on her own favorite films list LMAO)….ETC and ETC….We understand that you want to include more women into the list but don’t shit on the obvious superiority of better films and better filmmakers, you made your point? Cool, but your list is not the Directors’ List (The original List).

– …”The next time you watch a movie, pay close attention to the transitions. How many times does a transition fade, and how many times is a static image, such as a shot of a building or a panoramic view, used? The use of static images to transition from one scene to another (rather than using fade-out shots) was a hallmark of Yasujirō Ozu’s work. As his films were screened around the world, other filmmakers adopted the technique. The Belgian film director, Chantal Akerman, for example, was one of the first outside of Japan to adopt Yasujirō Ozu’s techniques. The result was the acclaimed 1975 production, Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles, which also brought Yasujirō Ozu’s innovative filming techniques to new audiences”.

– WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) –