Last December, the British magazine Sight and Sound revealed its 100 greatest films in history, an achievement dating back decades. The top spot went to the Belgian title Jeanne Dielman 23, quai du Commerce 1080 Bruxelles by Chantal Akerman. It surpassed Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo from 1958, marking the first time a woman director led the list in its 70 year history and kicking off conversations about shifts in the rankings. The edition also reflected broader changes: more films by female directors, newer titles breaking into the top tier, and a wider range of perspectives represented in the canon.
best movie ever
Is Jeanne Dielman the best film ever? What explains a work that ranked 72nd in 2002 and climbed to 36th by 2012 winning the crown? Could a movie that many viewers had never heard of become the supreme example of cinema? Do a growing pool of voters, now about one thousand six hundred and thirty-nine experts, make sense in a field that blends cinematographic judgment with cultural context? Is it possible to redraw a canon in a radical way? These questions fueled ongoing debates among cinephiles and critics, and they will continue to do so.
What stands out is how Jeanne Dielman drew attention from those who knew the film and from those who did not. It invites audiences to watch or rewatch a day in the life of a housewife. The work is part of a larger cycle that will be highlighted with a slate of titles dedicated to Akerman starting this Friday, including Jeanne Dielman, News From Home and No Home Movie. Akerman’s films will also be screened in theaters from March. The conversation now naturally asks how much space Akerman occupies in film history and how her body of work and legacy are understood.
Famous Sight and Sound list
To a film critic and scholar, a director holds a place among the most influential names in film discourse. The top position is often discussed within academic and cinephile circles as well as in broader conversations about film culture. For many, Jeanne Dielman is not just a top pick but a signal about how film studies has evolved to value different voices and approaches.
In recent years, the evaluation of film history has shifted. Critics and students alike have pressed for more inclusive histories that go beyond a single male canon. Akerman is central to that shift: she represents a generation of filmmakers whose work challenges traditional hierarchies and invites new generations to engage with her films. Some explain that her prominence in the poll reflects broader changes in how audiences and scholars talk about cinema and its history.
A critic and teacher in social communication notes that Akerman’s presence on the list mirrors a broader academic interest. The rise of feminist discourse around representation and the expansion of gender perspectives in film studies have also fed renewed attention to her work. The resurgence of interest in her films speaks to the moment in which many viewers now explore cinema through a more diverse lens and through a more open, internet-driven critical culture. Jeanne Dielman’s top spot thus signals a shift in how film history is written and understood.
how to shoot weather
Akerman’s work makes a case for space in cinema that is not purely entertaining. The Jeanne Dielman example, in particular, centers on two obvious choices: duration and a patient rhythm that can invite viewers to disengage or to lean into the experience. Some critics suggest that when audiences feel short on time, Akerman’s method becomes even more compelling. A scholar of communications notes that the film offers cinema as an experience from another era, and that its pace can feel irritating or slow to modern viewers. Yet this is precisely why the film endures: the time spent watching becomes a route through which viewers experience the moment that it depicts rather than a simple sequence of events. The film treats time as something to be felt, not rushed through.
Another admirer emphasizes the virtue of this temporal discipline. For them, Jeanne Dielman requires viewers to sit, observe, and let ideas unfold in parallel with the on-screen routine. The film’s approach to time is seen as a way to illuminate the day and the life it portrays, rather than to accelerate a narrative to a conventional payoff. Critics also highlight how the director’s handling of slow, ordinary acts can yield profound meaning, making the audience reconsider what cinema can be about when entertainment takes a back seat to introspection and real-time observation.
Some scholars point to how Akerman’s method reveals dead moments and the importance of witness and self representation in documentary-like storytelling. Her careful, intimate approach has long invited viewers to reflect on gender, labor, and time itself, which in turn helps explain why her films are central to discussions about feminist film theory and the evolution of the canon. The latest ranking underscores a wider cultural moment in which these themes are increasingly central to film literacy and to public conversations about cinema history.
Self-representation and feminism
Scholars note Akerman’s distinctive approach to self representation and the diaristic form. A curator at a prominent film program describes Akerman’s forays into experimental cinema as a bold departure from conventional storytelling. An anecdote from a participant who traveled from New York to attend a CCCB exhibition illustrates the transformative effect of Akerman’s work: a personal moment of realization that cinema can be more than entertainment, that it can be a vehicle for memory and inquiry. This encounter helped shape a commitment to the kind of cinema that challenges audiences and invites critical reflection.
In the CCCB’s Xcèntric Archive, Akerman’s films and related interviews are housed alongside conversations with collaborators such as cinematographers and performers. The archive makes visible the collaborative nature of her practice and the way she prioritized feminine perspectives on set. Critics have long argued that this collaborative approach was ahead of its time and remains a radical model for how film projects can be organized to center women’s voices and experiences. The archive serves as a living record of that experimentation and its influence on contemporary cinema.