I can't imagine why anybody would want to vote for the first fragments of Histoire(s) in the 80s and not just leave the whole thing for the 90s, but I suppose there's nothing to stop them.swo17 wrote:This doesn't affect the docs project, but I might as well ask now--for the decades projects, should the whole of Histoire(s) be eligible for the '80s list or for the '90s list? I believe that last round, people were voting for it for the '90s list (which is where most of the segments belong) but we also have some precedent for assigning multi-part films that straddle decades to the earlier of the two (e.g. Lang's Die Spinnen in the '10s, Ivan the Terrible in the '40s, The Human Condition in the '50s).
I'd say it's a completely different situation from those other examples, however, since they were all continual productions that happened to be released (for whatever reason) in parts that straddled decades. Godard was working on his project off and on for ten years. It's not as if he shot and edited everything in 1988 and then followed an eccentric release schedule over the next decade.
EDIT: Re. The Ascent of Man: this is just semantics. I think all singular, defined documentary series like this (and the obvious Civilisation, A History of Britain and Attenborough natural history ones) are in the same boat. They're even more of a coherent whole than the Godard: one big production packaged into x episodes. Personally, I don't think I'll be including anything like that, because there's going to be an embarrassment of riches of truly cinematic fare.
