criterionforum.org

Gregory wrote:Any genre list in which many more than about four people regularly participate would be swell. I'm just wondering what happened to most of the 26 people who voted to do animation for the current round.

I'll be weighing in as soon as I've got my 60s house in order. I'm strongly considering adopting a rather radical (read ridiculous) strategy for compiling my Animation list, so it should be fun attracting derision for that.

knives wrote:I'm for documentary though war sounds like a lot fun. Maybe we could do something really oddball like blaxploitation or something else that really hasn't had much scholarly work (suggesting this pretty exclusively because that's where a lot of my '70s list pre-watching has been lately).

I'll second blaxploitation. I think it is the genre that could require the most exploration out of members here. Which is obviously a good thing.

jiraffejustin wrote:

knives wrote:I'm for documentary though war sounds like a lot fun. Maybe we could do something really oddball like blaxploitation or something else that really hasn't had much scholarly work (suggesting this pretty exclusively because that's where a lot of my '70s list pre-watching has been lately).

I'll second blaxploitation. I think it is the genre that could require the most exploration out of members here. Which is obviously a good thing.

I was weaned on blaxploitation -among others, of course - but I'd be hard-pressed to list 20 films that I really care for, never mind 50.

Yojimbo wrote:

jiraffejustin wrote:

knives wrote:I'm for documentary though war sounds like a lot fun. Maybe we could do something really oddball like blaxploitation or something else that really hasn't had much scholarly work (suggesting this pretty exclusively because that's where a lot of my '70s list pre-watching has been lately).

I'll second blaxploitation. I think it is the genre that could require the most exploration out of members here. Which is obviously a good thing.

I was weaned on blaxploitation -among others, of course - but I'd be hard-pressed to list 20 films that I really care for, never mind 50.

A shorter list doesn't seem like that bad of an idea to me. If it did go through, it could take less time to compile. It would be something out of the ordinary.

Unless the goal is to get the fewest number of participants as possible, "Exploitation" would be a better marker, and make for better and freer discussion, and would easily meet the metrics of 50 titles on the ballot. I would hope short lists never come in vogue-- Any list that can't inspire 50 possible titles from someone reasonably versed in the genre ballot is probably a clue that it's not a good fit for the spirit of the project. War and Religion and Documentary are all good ideas, of course, and I still like Matt's un-suggestion of "Romance" from way back when

As far as voting, a better system than last time may be aligned ballots: Potential participants post in a thread and "verbally" vote for their chosen genre (out of a choice of no more than three, I'd think, so as to have some form of consensus)?

I agree with domino about the undesirability of genre lists that are too niche or small, but there's nothing to stop interested members starting a discussion thread about Blaxploitation films, or Nunsploitation films, or films featuring unsimulated animal cruelty, scary clowns or magic negroes. I mean, we already have a Hag Horror thread, so the more the merrier.

I'm going to go ahead and say blaxploitation is too narrow, but I'd be happy to put exploitation on there if there's some support. And yeah, a ranked 1-3 list of preferred genres sounds like it might be a more accurate way to get a vote.

I mentioned "Psychotronic" a few pages back and, beyond being completely impossible to define, I think it's a better term than "Exploitation", and encompasses many niches.

Fine by me, if someone else wants to second that

Documentary sounds good to me.
I've been meaning to start a thread for 21st C docs, both to champion some docs I've enjoyed and to find others I've missed. A nice golden age of documentary films the past decade plus, and I'm sure some very good ones are falling through the cracks.

I would participate in Religious (strong favorite), Documentary, and possibly War. I'm not interested in reliving my 20s, so Exploitation/Psychotronic is out for me.

Cold Bishop wrote:I mentioned "Psychotronic" a few pages back and, beyond being completely impossible to define.

There's the rub!
(or maybe it could be confined to films listed in Michael Weldon's Encyclopaedia! )

Yojimbo wrote:

Cold Bishop wrote:I mentioned "Psychotronic" a few pages back and, beyond being completely impossible to define.

There's the rub!
(or maybe it could be confined to films listed in Michael Weldon's Encyclopaedia! )

Or: How to Drain Every Scintilla of Fun from a List Project.

Please select your list of films from the list provided.

zedz wrote:

Yojimbo wrote:

Cold Bishop wrote:I mentioned "Psychotronic" a few pages back and, beyond being completely impossible to define.

There's the rub!
(or maybe it could be confined to films listed in Michael Weldon's Encyclopaedia! )

Or: How to Drain Every Scintilla of Fun from a List Project.

Please select your list of films from the list provided.

I'm sure people would still find a way to make it interesting!

I see that there's a somewhat less intellectually stimulating viewing project occurring on the DVDTalk forum and their label is "Drive-In/Exploitation/B-Movie," with assorted definitions compiled thataway. I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Missourah and Psychotronic, though

I like that the challenge there is not to compile a list of the best films that fit that label, but to make it through 100 of them. Kinda sounds right up domino's alley, actually.

Not that this is really a serious suggestion (War, Religious and Documentaries get my vote, and in that order!), but how about "Political cinema", something which could encompass everything from the Cold War thrillers (The Spy Who Came In From The Cold, The Kremlin Letter, The Quiller Memorandum, etc), to the 70s "All The President's Parallax Views" films, to Godard's 60s and 70s works or Resnais' The War Is Over, early Bertolucci, Death Of A Bureaucrat, No Man's Land, The Trial, To The Starry Island, Chinese films like The Blue Kite, etc, etc?

I think my policy is going to be that I'll start up a thread or have people vote here or whatever starting say next Monday with any suggestions that get a second and have some kind reasonable defense for how you could sustain a thread for them, so if anyone else wants Political films I'll put it on. Though it sounds like it's pretty much a question of War, Religious, and Documentary right now.

Hoping to start a furious debate in advance of the '70s project...

1. The two versions of Out 1 get absorbed into a single entity, correct?

2. Shall we consider Hapax Legomena to be one film à la Dekalog, I Am Curious, Dog Star Man, Scenes from Under Childhood, etc. or seven films like Rockys I through VII? I've only even seen four of the parts of HL but I'd still kind of like to count it as one film if only to shame Criterion for backtracking on its original plan of including the whole shebang on the Frampton set.

If it helps nudge things toward Hapax Legomena being treated as a single work, Frampton made nostalgia, Travelling Matte, and Critical Mass in rapid succession and by that time, as he told Scott MacDonald, "the rest of it was pretty clear. It felt pretty much like a single continuous effort. By the fall of 1971, I was entirely clear about what was to be done."

I think Hapax Legomena clearly falls outside the established 'one work' rule, which has only ever related to two films, not even three - so why seven?

Also, it's basically going to rule Frampton out of bounds, since hardly anybody will have had the opportunity to see all the components of the series, and the additional chance they they like every (very different) component film equally will further hamper his chances. Also, this will set a precedent for having to treat every other 'series' film as one big lump, which is just a disaster waiting to happen. You want to vote for Fischinger's Sorcerer's Apprentice? I'm sorry, you can only vote for it as part of his entire series of Studies. Yeah, some of them can't be seen. Too fucking bad - no Fischinger for you!

And, oh boy, I'm definitely not looking forward to having to argue the toss over every potential 'film series'. Really, how can you possibly justify claiming that Truffaut's Doinel films are less interrelated than the films that make up Hapax Legomena? And while we're at it, let's make an awkward threesome of Scorpio Rising, Invocation of My Demon Brother and Lucifer Rising!

Swo's quixotic assault on Mt Criterion notwithstanding (and will they even notice, and if they notice, will they care?), there's no way I'm going to vote for films I haven't seen, so if we rule to only consider Hapax Legomena as a unit, (nostalgia) will be vacating its top ten spot on my list and not appear at all - in which case, what kind of list project is this going to be? It's really going to send a message to Criterion if none of Frampton's films appear on the aggregate list! That'll show them how much we want to see the rest of his films!

I thought the one-work rule had already applied to The Human Condition, a six-part work divided into three for the purposes of distribution. And swo17 mentioned Dekalog, and Scenes from Under Childhood as single works, the latter being four parts, and counting that as a single work also makes it hard for anyone to vote for because relatively few have seen all the parts. I'm not sure Criterion's decision to break up big multi-part works should really be taken into consideration when asking whether or not these are single works conceived as a whole with multiple parts.
I wouldn't argue that the Doinel films are less interrelated, but they were clearly not part of a single creative work. It was plainly Truffaut making one film, then later rethinking the character and beginning a completely new film, making it up as he went along over a long period. Lump three Anger films together as a single work? How is that the same thing?

But I don't really want to have a "furious debate" over this. Whatever you all decide is okay with me.

zedz, you aren't necessarily wrong, but some thoughts to consider:

1. I don't want this to get into an argument about whether or not something "feels" like a single cohesive work. Many trilogies, official or otherwise, feel that way and I'm not suggesting that we consider those as single films. Related to this, the Frampton quote that Gregory cited doesn't necessarily sway me one way or the other.

2. As I've stated before with these kinds of arguments, I don't view the "one work" rule as only applying to films that come in twos. Rather, I view it as an argument of whether or not something can be considered to be a single multi-part film, i.e. Bernard's Les Miserables is a single three-part film, Dog Star Man is a single five-part film, Human Condition is a single six-part film, Dekalog is a single ten-part film, Scenes from Under Childhood is a single four-part film (three parts of which are incidentally not readily available for viewing to the vast majority of us, though I wonder if that alone is keeping anyone from voting for it).

3. I have only seen a small surviving segment of Homunculus, but that didn't stop me from voting for it in the pre-'20s project. I would similarly have no problem voting only for the portion of HL that is accessible for me to see. Alternatively, if we counted it as a single film for list project purposes, it could be kind of a catch-all for anyone voting for either an individual segment or the whole thing.

Gregory wrote:I thought the one-work rule had already applied to The Human Condition, a six-part work divided into three for the purposes of distribution. And swo17 mentioned Dekalog, and Scenes from Under Childhood as single works, the latter being four parts, and counting that as a single work also makes it hard for anyone to vote for because relatively few have seen all the parts. I'm not sure Criterion's decision to break up big multi-part works should really be taken into consideration when asking whether or not these are single works conceived as a whole with multiple parts.
I wouldn't argue that the Doinel films are less interrelated, but they were clearly not part of a single creative work. It was plainly Truffaut making one film, then later rethinking the character and beginning a completely new film, making it up as he went along over a long period. Lump three Anger films together as a single work? How is that the same thing?

But I don't really want to have a "furious debate" over this. Whatever you all decide is okay with me.

Dekalog falls under the well established mini-series rule. Human Condition and Scenes from Under Childhood (which is now another film I can't vote for) were special exceptions which started this slippery slope in the first place. Invocation of My Demon Brother is composed of outtakes from the aborted first attempt at Lucifer Rising, which was conceived as a follow-up to Scorpio. I think the idea of considering them a single work is ludicrous, but the point is that a case could be made for all sorts of things nobody ever anticipated.

Swo: your point three is all well and good, until you get to the very likely position that somebody might specifically not want to vote for some parts of a series of films. If we decree that any vote for The Empire Strikes Back is also a vote for The Phantom Menace (and why shouldn't we? I'm sure if we asked George Lucas his opinion, he'd tell us to go for it) is that really going to make voting more straightforward for people?

And there's a huge qualitative difference between a film that only survives in truncated form, like Homonculus, or The Magnificent Ambersons, and one which exists intact but which you've only seen part of.

swo17 wrote:Hoping to start a furious debate in advance of the '70s project...

1. The two versions of Out 1 get absorbed into a single entity, correct?

By reputation anyways they're so different that I figure they should be considered two different pieces edited from the same cloth.