The Devil's Advocate: Best-Of-The-Year Lists Including Unreleased Films
Written by Andreas Babiolakis
The end of the year is almost here, and most critics have put out their lists of the best films of the year (mine will be just around the corner, on that note). I’ll keep it brief today, but I wanted to address something that comes up a lot and has been for as long as social media has been the primary form of communication online: complaints about what these lists entail. I’ll try not to be one-sided, but I myself am a critic and I find it is my duty to try and explain something that has been bothering social media users for years.
The gist of these complaints that I’m covering today isn’t so much the taste of the critic(s) who post their best-of lists, but rather the ongoing notion that these lists feature films that haven’t been released to the public yet. Examples include the ones posted by publications like Time or IndieWire that feature films that are only going to be released around the holidays, or even awards shows; the Golden Globes nominating films like The Color Purple which hasn’t been officially released yet got some raised eyebrows by cynics. I’m not going to be all clickbait-happy by insisting that some users in a world of billions of people speak on behalf of everyone, that their complaints are the complete consensus that is “slamming” these lists or that the world is ending (it certainly feels like it is, but not because of this). I just notice these rants again and again year after year. Should websites or awards shows be able to select or nominate films that the public hasn’t seen yet?
I say yes. One hundred percent.
Allow me to play devil’s advocate not to be difficult or a contrarian, but because I sincerely believe that there is nothing wrong with how things currently are.
Before I continue, I will bring up the one thing that does bother me about these lists: the race to get them out as soon as possible. While there is an incentive to read a list that acknowledges the best films of 2023 that is released in November (readers can look forward to what is to come in December), these lists are published this early as a clear means of trying to beat out other outlets in the search engine optimization (SEO) game: a strategy that gets search engines like Google and Bing to identify webpages sooner and place them higher in any possible search results. What does bother us is how this then makes some December releases become a part of next year’s list because some critics get too carried away with themselves and thus feel the need to acknowledge films that they missed out on in some capacity, and suddenly the definition of a year being in review becomes a little skewed. This is especially prevalent in music criticism, with journalism juggernaut Pitchfork rewarding SZA’s great album SOS as the best of 2023, despite it being a 2022 release (which is silly when you really think about it). There’s nothing wrong with being early, but you can definitely be too early.
I also want to preface the rest of this article by stating that none of this is meant to be a flex on anyone. Are critics fortunate that they get to view films before others? Absolutely. As a cinephile, being able to watch films as soon as possible — and sometimes even before most people can — is a massive treat in my eyes. I don’t want the following insights to seem like they are me being snooty and rubbing your nose in the fact that I occasionally get to see films before you do. Critics need this foresight in order to have the time to prepare articles so they are ready for when films get released. Additionally, you may not know the curse that previous knowledge that an anticipated film is bad has on a critic, especially if we’re not allowed to talk about it yet. It doesn’t feel very good, let me assure you.
Let’s get back to the topic at hand. I understand that people don’t think there’s any sense in listing films that haven’t been released yet to the general public because there’s no way that society as a community can determine whether or not these films are good. However, these are all films that critics have seen ahead of time via film festivals, private screenings, or press screener copies (be they physical discs or digital services). All established critics have access to these. Much of my content in general — and especially this year — has come from these kinds of methods, particularly when I was accredited media for the Toronto International Film Festival. Critics can view many films early year-round, not just during the awards season (although this certainly helps with distributors wanting to get the word out on their upcoming releases). If people complaining think that critics haven’t seen films just because the public hasn’t, I can assure you that that is not the case. When it comes to voters and awards ceremonies, we can’t be certain that everyone watches every nominated work and is voting honestly, but it’s safe to say that critics placing films on their best-of lists have seen what they are commenting on, and any liars are anomalies.
Again, critics are given advanced access to screenings all year round. Sometimes, a critic can be sitting on a review waiting to publish it for weeks. If you aren’t familiar with the concept of an embargo, it’s a stipulation that prevents a critic from speaking about a film (or any other project they’re reviewing) until a very specific time and date, so as to not spoil a film for those who cannot see it yet; this also works as a safety precaution that studios use for films they are apprehensive about, maybe refusing to let a wave of backlash spoil what money they can earn during a film’s opening weekend by requesting that all reviews only get released the day of said film’s release. Embargos don’t have to be listed just on the day of a film’s release: they can occur whenever critics are instructed, be it days or weeks before a film’s theatrical debut, home release, et cetera. Some films flat-out don’t even have embargos attached to them.
If you’re then about to bring up the idea that watching a film in 2023 doesn’t make it a 2023 film, you may have a point there. Many film festival releases don’t get picked up or released until a year later; do you consider The Hurt Locker a 2008 film because of its film festival run, or a 2009 film because of when it was released to the public? Where I am understanding is if a critic brings up a film that has only played in film festivals but doesn’t even have plans for a major release yet, or won’t be shown until the year afterwards. Such is the case with a film like Azazel Jacobs’ His Three Daughters: a terrific film that hasn’t popped up on any end-of lists that I have seen. That’s most likely not because it isn’t being considered, but because most critics are rightfully considering it a 2024 release and not one of this year. Again, there is such a thing as being too early, and this is such an example.
Otherwise, a film that is shown in film festivals, via press-related means, in limited theatrical screenings, widely, and/or via streaming all in the span of the same year counts as films of that year. This includes those annoying January releases that distributers love to foist on us to play the awards season game (whatever recency bias helps voters award films Oscars and other trophies), because of how much of their promotional run and viewership took place in the previous year. Now, unlike my previous gripe, should a critic consider these releases of the next year (so, in this case, 2024 instead of 2023), I am much more understanding. If I can be a stickler about a film being considered eligible for a best-of list despite not being released yet by the publication of said list, then a January release can be viewed as a January release in the eyes of others. See? I’m flexible.
My point is more about my insistence that these critics and voters aren’t doing anything wrong. By trade, critics watch things differently than the general public down to the very foundation of our own viewing schedules versus those of the public. Critics are meant to watch films before the public by the very nature of how the industry works: how are we supposed to let you know whether a film is worth watching or not if we don’t have the means of watching it? Wouldn’t it be better to know these things before a film is even out? What good is it when you have no insight, watch a bad film, and get told weeks later by every critic that you shouldn’t have wasted your time and money watching it? If you can agree that it makes sense throughout the year, then it should also make sense when critics release their lists of the best films of the year, as long as they’re actually considering films of this year.
I’ll finish off by stating that I think there are correct times to be annoyed by these kinds of notions. When the Academy Awards nominated Tell It Like a Woman and the film wasn’t even finished yet (I should know, I watched it in its somewhat incomplete form), then this shouldn’t even be up for debate. The film wasn’t even completed in any functioning capacity (mind you, the “finished” film hardly felt like it was cohesive as well) when it was getting nominated for an Oscar, and I find this disingenuous and unfair for completed films that deserved the fighting chance of the spot this film took up. I’m not just flexible. I’m understanding as well, especially in extreme circumstances like this one that feel borderline slimy.
Otherwise, I’ll stop being the Grinch this holiday season. If you still disagree with my takes, try to see these best-of lists as recommendations of what is to come. Enjoy them. Dissect them. Try not to view them as unfair or unjust. Most of the time, they are completely fair in a way that may not seem like it at first. At the end of the day, these are meant to be celebrations through the acknowledgements of great films. Isn’t it nice to be able to look forward to films you have yet to see yet? To see films pop up that are labelled as the best of the year and you have the opportunity to see them for the first time? In the age of streaming where we can get almost anything we want whenever, we’ve forgotten how lovely the concept of hype can be. (Most) critics aren’t trying to be deceptive or dishonest. They’re trying to get you excited by sharing what we love with you. Oftentimes, these later releases are our opportunities to relive films we’ve seen months ago and are dying to revisit (for me, this title is The Zone of Interest, which I have been impatient to rewatch since September).
Hate my takes all you want. That’s never been the issue at hand. Just know that these lists are honest (in the hands of most) and are meant with good intentions.
Andreas Babiolakis has a Masters degree in Film and Photography Preservation and Collections Management from Toronto Metropolitan University, as well as a Bachelors degree in Cinema Studies from York University. His favourite times of year are the Criterion Collection flash sales and the annual Toronto International Film Festival.