Is it arbitrary ... of course, but what is the alternative. The calendar is also somewhat arbitrary but we celebrate a new year every Dec 31 running into January 1st. Likewise around this time we also begin to take stock of the past year remembering the highs and lows.

Those who complain about the flood of top ten lists are missing the point that the more perspectives the better, besides we undoubtably pay more attention to the critics we prefer and "types" of lists they are...

I find these lists most useful for seeking out films I haven't seen or as reminders of films I should check out on DVD. This is particularly important for those of us who live outside the major metropolis-areas and thus rely on DVD releases for most of our International film watching.

Pura Vida!

Who doesn't love a list? I live to skim!

I liked your list, Aaron. For myself, i realized that I couldn't do ten films, and that that three of my favorite films seen in 2008 will be more widely seen this year. Also, with changes in the way films can be made available, the old model of theatrical release in NYC or LA to determine the year is no longer valid.

What do you suggest as an alternative model, Peter?

I think it should be the Arch Campbell model: Only films that screened within ten blocks of my house should be eligible each year.

...

But seriously -- this is one of the challenges. Here in San Francisco, there were films I either had one shot to see because there was one press screening or one film festival screening, or I had no chance to see it at all. Some films get released early in the year that saw a brief release, or a festival run, in NY or LA or Europe, in the previous year. So I base my own list's eligibility on whether/when it got a theatrical release in SF, or a film festival release. In general.

I had Four Months... on my list because it opened nationally in '08, even though some critics had seen it the year before either abroad or late in '07. No hard and fast rules; whatever a critic feels is right.

CP

To answer Brian: There may be no one size fits all answer. I would say for myself that I would name those films that I saw during the calendar year, and note whether they were seen as a current theatrical release, in a festival, or on disc or other format. Just as film criticism has shifted from a solely print based medium, the way we see films has shifted so that one is not dependent only on a theatrical run.

Because of the enthusiasm of Team Benten, Reprise and Funky Forest (a film I first read about in early 2007 in Thailand) shall hasten up the rental queue.

I don't make lists for a variety of reasons, nor do I find lists interesting. All they do is sample from the most widely available films within a calendar year. As Peter rightly points out, we don't all have the same year, especially now that film writing has gone global.

Personally, I would favor a favorites of the quarter. In this way, there could be sort of a rolling tally that would not be dependent on a calendar year, and it would give films attention throughout the year. It may be hoping for too much, but a quarterly list of favorites (why 10? It's not a magical number.) of might actually encourage studios and distributors to release good films all year, not just stack them up for the holidays or to keep them fresh in the memories of the awarding organization members.

I recently wrote up a list, but given that I now live in a city where there is only limited access to major films, I've moved toward listing "favorites" rather than "bests."

I think these lists serve two useful functions. On the one hand, they are a part of a collective tastemaking function that can help us to find films we might find interesting. It also serves as a reward for the filmmakers who are included on such lists.

But they can also serve as a means of historicizing the present, of making sense of where we are and where we've been, cinematically, culturally, or whatever.