criterionforum.org

Hmm, definitely going to have to read this book though I agree a static filming of a stage performance isn't a musical though more for how filmic language isn't used than anything else. But if it uses the full advantages of cinema, like any adaptation should, I don't see why. Than again I don't know of any wall to wall musicals anyways so it's a bit of a moot point. Given hwo I see this coming around how would you label something like Fantasia or The Wall (I really don't understand the dislike it's getting here).

domino harvey wrote: Format Narrative (thus excluding concert films not because they're documentaries, but because they're not narratives. This excludes revue films too, which Altman respects and refers to, but insists must be considered as second cousins to the genre, like shorts or cartoons)

When you say cartoons, do you mean shorts like Merry Melodies, or would you exclude full length animated features? I mean, almost every Disney feature more or less fits every one of the categories otherwise, and certainly I would have Triplets of Belleville on any list I would make.

I don't think Triplets really fits his categories, but I agree that stuff like the Disney features should count. Since many animated film are not musicals it seems ridiculous to discount those that are (that said it will already be like pulling teeth for me to not include The Band Concert).

domino harvey wrote:I wonder if we can't all just agree to take a few personal hits from our contestable favorites at the service of a more stable list-making and discussion process?

I have to say, shoehorning something onto a list more because you like it and feel compelled to bring it up in every facet of life than because it belongs there is, above all, insulting to the form. Like, I don't like real musicals so here are a bunch of films that obviously aren't musicals that I'm going to call musicals just to show how terrible musicals are--they can't even make a best musicals list! It's kind of like saying you like rap music but only when white people make it. There's no need to find interesting and creative ways to redefine what a musical is with your list. There are plenty of films that everyone in the world would agree are musicals without batting an eye. Watch those and rank them.

Fantasia would be a Review, like Ziegfeld Follies, thus not eligible. He does talk about how a lot of Disney films, like Lady and the Tramp, are built around the same structure as adult musicals, but focuses more on how these belong to a separate genre of juvenile-targeted material. As for the Wall, I haven't seen it since my days as a young classic rock-listening kid, but doesn't it concern a drunk who envisions he's a Hitler-esque ruler? Sounds like a narrative to me, no matter how convoluted it is expressed. But Altman's list of musicals goes through 1983 and excludes the film, so take that how you will.

Personally speaking, matrix, I can't see anyone convincingly arguing against a narrative Disney musical for the purposes of our list. Altman's reasons for excluding them to a certain degree are due to his concerns with regards to genre (much of the book is taken up with the problem of genre itself), but we needn't be quite so strict for our purposes. Shorts, though, would not fall under the feature-length narrative requirement, so no Owl Jolson.

A review? That's an interesting concept, does that book you suggested go in depth on that? Though that juvenile exclusion seems to be just a bias against animation since there are many adult pieces of animation.

knives wrote:A review? That's an interesting concept, does that book you suggested go in depth on that? Though that juvenile exclusion seems to be just a bias against animation since there are many adult pieces of animation.

I typo'd-- I meant "revue," of course. He does discuss them, and even admits that some segments can nicely represent many of the topics under discussion, but they're still a secondary offshoot of the genre. And he means juvenile as in appealing towards juveniles via indoctrination. He's not denigrating the Disney genre at all, just separating it from the one he's discussing at length.

knives wrote:Wouldn't the last one exclude Operas which are sort of the definitive musical genre?

Operas should be excluded, though, since historically they're quite distinct from the musical (a 20th century bastard, popular offspring). But that doesn't preclude a musical being constructed around operatic numbers.

domino harvey wrote:I feel like we need to embrace the spirit of the list more with the next round. To give a personal example, when teaching musicals last year, I finished the unit with Billy Wilder's Irma La Douce, which of course is a Broadway musical adaptation with all the music numbers excised. We examined how it remained a musical in all ways, stylistically, narratively, &c but one, and it to my eyes is a musical. But at the same time, I can't in good conscience make the argument here that it's a musical and should be eligible, regardless of my personal affinity for the film. Yeah, you could try to shoehorn in Mulholland Dr or something because there's a singing scene, but why are you? That seems to be almost willfully missing the point of a musical list. I still more or less abide by the Vote For It rule, but I wonder if we can't all just agree to take a few personal hits from our contestable favorites at the service of a more stable list-making and discussion process?

Nothing to add: just reposting this because it seems like the kind of thing that ought to be reposted on every page of this thread.

swo17 wrote:

domino harvey wrote:I wonder if we can't all just agree to take a few personal hits from our contestable favorites at the service of a more stable list-making and discussion process?

I have to say, shoehorning something onto a list more because you like it and feel compelled to bring it up in every facet of life than because it belongs there is, above all, insulting to the form. Like, I don't like real musicals so here are a bunch of films that obviously aren't musicals that I'm going to call musicals just to show how terrible musicals are--they can't even make a best musicals list! It's kind of like saying you like rap music but only when white people make it. There's no need to find interesting and creative ways to redefine what a musical is with your list. There are plenty of films that everyone in the world would agree are musicals without batting an eye. Watch those and rank them.

I agree with this in part, but I also feel like one of the fundamental purposes of this whole (fairly silly and arbitrary) process is to re-examine canons and find new things- which certainly isn't an excuse for shoehorning familiar favorites into places they don't belong, but does seem like a good reason to bother putting forward discussing how The New World might be a Western, or bringing up Black Devil White God. If we just go with stuff that's obviously a Western (or a musical) without re-examining what that means, I'm not sure I understand the idea of genre lists at all.

That doesn't necessarily mean that absolutely everything should automatically qualify for whatever genre, but I do think the discussions of "does this fit and why?" can actually be really interesting, and I think there's as much a risk in relying on the familiar in only going with things that obviously fit as there is in forcing in things that obviously don't.

To me, one of the things that can make for a good genre movie is the tension between adhering to generic elements and resisting them- if I love New York, New York or A Woman is a Woman, that doesn't mean that I'm shitting on the musicals that came before them, and I don't think I would like either the same way if I didn't have at least some familiarity with and affection for the classic Hollywood stuff.

domino harvey wrote:

knives wrote:A review? That's an interesting concept, does that book you suggested go in depth on that? Though that juvenile exclusion seems to be just a bias against animation since there are many adult pieces of animation.

I typo'd-- I meant "revue," of course. He does discuss them, and even admits that some segments can nicely represent many of the topics under discussion, but they're still a secondary offshoot of the genre. And he means juvenile as in appealing towards juveniles via indoctrination. He's not denigrating the Disney genre at all, just separating it from the one he's discussing at length.

I thought so, but wasn't sure. Getting to the Disney stuff though, that might apply to the Disney films, but it doesn't apply to all animated films and when considering genre who it is geared at and how shouldn't be considered at all except in the case of propaganda. It seems like clear ghettoization to me. That said his other rules make sense, though I'm going to be lazy as usual and just count what IMDB says is a musical unless they are clearly wrong.

swo17 wrote:Also, there need to be enough of them that if they were sex scenes, the film would be considered pornography.

I hope I'm not the only one planning on listing Bud Townsend's delightful Alice in Wonderland: An X-Rated Musical Fantasy

And here I was thinking of The Wayward Cloud!

Interestingly, the Altman definition domino raised would actually support The Hole as a musical too, though that was one I was on the fence about (since all the musical numbers are performed by an extraneous character).

There is a chorus for some musicals to consider afterall. It just needs that forward motion. Tarpilot, is that porn actually good or just weird?

knives wrote:There is a chorus for some musicals to consider afterall. It just needs that forward motion. Tarpilot, is that porn actually good or just weird?

Of course, you have to have to have a certain tolerance for what was basically a bunch of aging hippies fucking around and cracking jokes, but I really do think it's a wonderful film. There's a lot of sweetly earnest sentiment about self-discovery that coexists very amiably with the more bawdy and corny (but still genuinely funny) jokes and songs, much of which is owed to Kristine DeBell's pleasing believability. And for a film ostensibly about a virginal librarian learning the pleasures of the flesh, there's a romantic chasteness stressed in many of the passages that elevates the final "reunion" and truly makes it feel earned (much like many of the best "regular" musicals). In terms of classic porn that has managed to endure the decades since its release, I think its lightness makes an interesting counterpoint to Radley Metzger's more deliberately intellectual and rigorous work, especially The Lickerish Quartet, with which it shares a number of fantastical and reflexive traits.

Wow, and here I was thinking only the Mitchel brothers could produce poetry from their audience. With a description like that (almost sweet, but a porn; can't grasp that concept) it's one I'll have to rent for the list. I should mention that the Metzger reference is like Greek to me.

swo17 wrote:if anyone is discussing or voting for TV series at all, even if not everyone does it, then our discussion thread and the final list are no longer just about films anymore.

But the list was no longer just about films the moment you made the 'mini-series' exception.

Also, this limited exception really makes no real logical sense. A US narrative series stretched out over 6 episodes will usually be eligible, because 6 episodes is generally considered short (ie. 'mini') in the US, whereas in the UK 6 episodes is the usual length of a TV season so most series will be considered ineligible. And then if you take a US series and stretch the narrative out to (gasp!) 12 episodes then suddenly that's no longer eligible either... It's completely arbitrary really, albeit with the convenience of pointing a finger and saying "oh but the IMDB says it, so it must be true..."

zedz wrote:Nobody really disputes that there's a fundamental difference between films and episodes of television - until they get their knickers in a twist because they can't vote for one of their pet shows

But isn't this how the 'mini-series exception' arose in the first place? So as not to exclude pet highbrow TV like Fanny & Alexander, Berlin Alexanderplatz and other "clearly auteurist works"?

zedz wrote:...an arbitrary, ultimately irrelevant and supposedly fun exercise.

If that's the case, what does it matter what other people want to put on their list? Why are a small but vocal group so keen to dictate to others what is and isn't 'eligible'?

In terms of tabulation, THAT part, sure, should be up to domino, although the easiest thing would be that a vote for, say, Twin Peaks = a vote for Twin Peaks, regardless of whether one names an episode, season or the entire thing (the same way, presumably, that votes for different edits of The New World will be tabulated together). If the individual ballots are then posted in full, this would allow people to look into the details of who exactly voted for what.

And since we're speaking of lists, the 'ultimate' list is surely the S&S list conducted once every decade, right? And yet S&S impose no 'eligibility' criteria - if they did, I imagine they'd find it much harder to get a response from the various critics and filmmakers involved without pissing them off. And there are always some tabulation issues, but they find a way around them.

As for music videos, why not? If someone is stupid enough to vote that way then let them... And speaking of which, is Thriller a music video or...?

Nothing wrote:If that's the case, what does it matter what other people want to put on their list? Why are a small but vocal group so keen to dictate to others what is and isn't 'eligible'?

Because we, as a forum, decided this already, and no one appreciates some loud-mouth suddenly barging in to complain. Demanding that everyone change the rules 3/4 of the way through a List just to suit you is so absurdly self-centered that it gives me a headache. Just stop already.

"we, as a forum, decided this already" - we did? I don't recall... Besides, what an indiviual chooses to put on their list shouldn't be the subject to group sanction (you'll be telling us what to do in the bedroom next...)

Jesus christ Nothing stop making ado about yourself and drop it since Domino already gave you the leeway to vote for your bloody stupid show. There's not a thing left to do now that your whining has got you your way. You are on the attack for no reason and are just alienating sympathetic individuals (which I count myself amongst) for no purpose.

Nothing wrote:"we, as a forum, decided this already" - we did? I don't recall... Besides, what an indiviual chooses to put on their list shouldn't be the subject to group sanction (you'll be telling us what to do in the bedroom next...)

That's not fair, since babies at least stop crying once they get what they want

It's the sight of Mr. Sausage, I just can't help it...

So what about Thriller? \:D/

Not a feature length film

Hang on, short films aren't eligible for the lists either (eg. La Jetee)?

So what about Glee? (kidding).

Short films are available for most lists, but as we've been discussing the musicals list Domino has put forth an interesting idea of the nature of the musical which would prevent short films (leaving them as a part of a whole different genre he calls a revue). I personally love the idea since it makes these shorts (and anthology music films) into something compellingly their own.