The September-October issue of the journal Film Comment contains a lengthy article by Paul Schrader, titled “Canon Fodder.” In the article, Schrader attempts something never previously tackled at such length: he explores the history of, and criteria for, a canonical list of necessary films.  (Note: this is re-posted from blogger and Bangkok Arts Review, Matthew Hunt.)  The full version of Schrader’s article is here.

There have been many previous attempts at compiling ‘definitive’ lists of classic films, sometimes selected by public votes, sometimes chosen by individuals or panels of critics, and sometimes distilled from polls of critics and directors. I identified the most frequent types last year. The acknowledged leader in the field is Sight & Sound’s list of ten ‘greatest films of all time’, chosen by hundreds of international critics and published every decade (most recently in 2002); Citizen Kane has remained at the top of their list ever since 1962.

In his article, Schrader traces the fascinating history of the notion of artistic and literary canons. Inspired by Harold Bloom’s The Western Canon, he then proposes and explains a series of criteria by which to judge the films of the past 100 years: beauty (“the bedrock of all judgments of taste”), strangeness (“unpredictable burst of originality”), unity of form and subject-matter (“this traditional yardstick of artistic value”), tradition (“The greatness of a film or filmmaker must be judged not only on its own terms but by its place in the evolution of film”), repeatability (“appreciated by successive generations, it grows in importance and context with time”), viewer engagement (“The great film not only comes at the viewer, it draws the viewer toward it”), and morality (“Good or bad resonance [is] beside the point. The point is that no work that fails to strike moral chords can be canonical”).

Schrader is consciously elitist in his choices (“to counter the proliferation of popularity-driven lists”), and he also eschews auteurism (“I’d like to concentrate on films, not filmmakers”). Furthermore, he maintains that canons need not contain ‘equal opportunities’ quotas (“Genre and subject matter don’t matter; nor do the age, race, and sex of the filmmakers”).