The Lists Project

[zedz]

I count 72 for Raúl Ruiz based on his wikipedia page not counting shorts and projects labeled unfinished or lost. I don't know how many are available on DVD.

Not nearly enough (for this project or in general)

[swo17]

I think only 16 features and 3 shorts: 10+2 shorts from the Alfama set (combining the two Clap sets), 3 from blaq out/Facets, Blind Revenge, Comedy of Innocence, and Night Across the Street (which includes another short). You can fill in quite a few gaps through backchannels, but you're still only making a dent in his filmography.

[matrixschmatrix]

Bergman has 47, and Kurosawa made 30, so they seem like possibilities. Lubitsch apparently made 44 feature length films, though a few of those are apparently lost, and also doing Lubitsch would be really fun.

[zedz]

Almost all of Ozu's few dozen surviving films are readily available

[Rayon Vert]

Lubitsch apparently made 44 feature length films, though a few of those are apparently lost, and also doing Lubitsch would be really fun.

Yes it would, but how many of his existing films are actually on DVD - 25 or so?

Which brings to mind Preminger - I count 35 of his films as available, including the uncredited ones.

[Cold Bishop]

*coughChang Chehcough*

[Lemmy Caution]

I was reading an interview with Clint Eastwood (and son), and it mentions that he directed 35 films ...

[Werewolf by Night]

I'm sure his mother is very proud.

[barryconvex]

Anybody mentioned Woody Allen? 50 credits not including his section from "The Concert For NYC" or his other shorts from 2001 and 1971 respectively. Pretty sure they're all easily available...

[domino harvey]

Woody Allen, along with Hitchcock, was my inspiration for the new Auteur Lists, so yes, he's in contention and has been since conception

[domino harvey]

(Dead post because I don't want the next post at the bottom of the page. Don't ever follow my bad example)

[domino harvey]

So our first Auteur List in on track to be the second most-successful non-Decade List in board history (Behind Horror-- nothing will ever top Horror except maybe the Horror List Redux), so expect more of these in the future.

For those who want to know what is coming next, here is the schedule for the next few non-Decade lists:

November 05 - March 08 Westerns List Redux
March 09 - May 05 Ingmar Bergman Auteur List
May 06 - July 01 Cannes Top Award Winners Mini-List
July 02 - August 30 Fritz Lang Auteur List
August 31 - October 27 Nouvelle Vague Mini-List

The Cannes list will include films that either won the Palme d’Or or Grand Prix du Festival International du Film (see list here). The Nouvelle Vague list will have eligibility perimeters TBA when the thread goes up (well ahead of its start date)

[knives]

I hope the NV at least allows inclusion by left bank directors.

[domino harvey]

It will for sure

Also it already looks like I may be wrong and the Hitchcock List will outperform all other non-Decade lists

[TMDaines]

Doubt I'll participate in Westerns, but in for the rest.

[TMDaines]

If the Cannes mini-list goes well, doing the same for Berlin and Venice would be good. Sets of less well known films on there.

[TMDaines]

Can I assume the pre-1920s list will run for a full length period this time (9 months) and it will be a fixed length of 50? There were concessions made last time for this list, but not sure why it shouldn't get the standard treatment now.

[swo17]

Full length is eight months for a standard decade, but here the films are generally much shorter--six months should be plenty of time. Participants will submit lists of 50 to contribute to an aggregate top 100. Tabulation duties will be performed by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

[TMDaines]

They are shorter, but it's harder to get much watching done with friends and families, at cinemas etc, so it cancels out for me at least. If people favour a shorter period, I won't grumble.

I'm already waiting for you to PwC the results of the All-time List Project.

[swo17]

Well, this is the one where I'm most uncertain of the needed timeframe, so we can see where we are close to the deadline.

[TMDaines]

Just producing IMDb lists of the results of the earlier iterations of The Lists Project for the Silent Era and no-one ever seems to have noticed that the second iteration of the Silent Era List Project had no film in #42 position.

The Silent Era List (compiled in June 2006)

[...]

36. The Birth of a Nation (Griffith, 1915) 125
(tie) Foolish Wives (von Stroheim, 1922) 125
38. Arsenal (Dovzhenko, 1928) 123
39. Fantômas (Feuillade, 1913-1914) 122
40. The Circus (Chaplin, 1928) 121
(tie) The Wind (Sjöstrom, 1928) 121
43. A Trip to the Moon (Méliès, 1902) 120

[...]

As there was a tie at #100, there is still 100 films on the list though!

[swo17]

So what did everyone think about there being a short second round for the all-time list? I thought it worked rather well, and of all the people that I invited to participate, only two declined to do so. Several people mentioned that it got them to rethink some of the placements on their lists for the better, and I also thought we had some good discussion in the thread during those few days. It got me thinking about whether something similar could be done for the individual decades lists, only it would have to work a little differently of course (no need to eliminate orphans, for instance). What do people think about an idea like this?

1. We have a first round deadline by which time everyone submits their lists like normal. At that time, I publish a list of orphans and a separate list of everything that has received more than one vote, without alluding to how films have placed otherwise.

2. This prompts people to say "Wait, this is an orphan? I guess I'd better talk it up" or "Whoa, multiple people voted for that? I guess I'd better watch it" or "Whoops, I totally forgot to put that on my list" or "This is the best these lightweights could come up with? I guess I'll have to contribute a list after all." This leads to additional discussion and viewings for the second round of voting, which lasts a week (two weeks? a month? if people are serious about giving other people's recommendations a shot it would be nice for them to have enough time to do so--maybe the first round could even end halfway through the project). During the period of the second round I would accept any revisions to first-round lists as well as any newly submitted lists. If someone submitted a first-round list and then nothing after, I would just continue to count their original list.

Too often we end a project with people regretting that they didn't see something or talk about something or participate at all, but then we rush right into the next decade and make the same mistakes. I think making this a two-round process would help address some of these issues. In particular, I think it would be great if the second round were thought of as a kind of orphan rescue project, where people tried to watch as many of those as they could.

[knives]

If you think it is beneficial and don't mind the added work I'm fine with it.

[swo17]

As I've said before, the way that I tabulate lists it really doesn't take much additional work at all for me to make minor tweaks to the originally submitted lists.

[DarkImbecile]

Anything that spurs additional discussion and advocacy is a good thing in my book; I'm currently painfully regretting my laziness in failing to post a long appreciation of The Wages of Fear, which fell just 13 points short of making the All-Time list.