criterionforum.org

I'm fine with it remaining a full list. Looking back at the one I submitted way back when I still have an overwhelming fondness for my fifty, yet would already need some cuts for new to me films let alone whatever I'll include after a few months of viewing (I still haven't seen the Griffith Biograph shorts set!). There's a lot more stuff available on DVD now then when we did it back then too.

I completely agree with knives. A lot of new stuff from the pre-20s period has become available. not just on dvd, but also freely available through sites like the European Film Gateway project or the Cineteca Milano via Vimeo. I guess my Top 50 for the pre-1920s will look considerably different now thanks to initiatives such as these.

For the record I'd be fine with that. I just remember several people saying last time that they didn't have to make enough tough cuts like for most lists.

I'd like to hop back aboard the train, but to be honest I don't know that I could manage a full pre 20s list, though I'd give it a shot. A half list would give me the chance to stretch a bit and prep for the 20s without being overwhelming.

Don't worry, the list compiler will only be too happy to give you a list of the movies you were supposed to vote fo-- oh wait, swo's in charge this time

I've been pre-gaming today with some Chaplin Keystone films and that was funnier then any of them so far. Though points off for lack of Mabel Normand.

Won't the Pre-1920s List not be for another six months (at least)? I admire your pre-gaming stamina though!

Is it, I thought we were starting next month?

The all-time list is next, and it will last forever.

Well, that's relaxing.

I'd be more than happy with the pre-1920s list being a fifty. It's been six years since the last poll and I bet loads has been made available for the first time since. I think I actually found this and the 1920s the most enjoyable projects as my knowledge of those eras beforehand were pretty much nonexistent.

thirtyframesasecond wrote:I'd be more than happy with the pre-1920s list being a fifty. It's been six years since the last poll and I bet loads has been made available for the first time since. I think I actually found this and the 1920s the most enjoyable projects as my knowledge of those eras beforehand were pretty much nonexistent.

Yeah, the pre-20s list was by far the most enlightening list I ever took part in (solely from the viewing perspective, as it was the most oppressively moderated one we've ever suffered!). So many amazing new films almost all of us had to watch to make a proper list, and it completely transformed my understanding of the period.

TMDaines wrote:My hypothesis is that virtually everyone here has seen most of the big English-language films, especially as a significant proportion of them were in contention for major awards and played in multiplexes, whilst the same cannot be said for the foreign ones. It's not like the historical lists where the majority of the viewing would have been done on DVD/BD and most of the big arthouse films are just as easily acquired as the English-language films.

I'd love to know how much certain films have been seen by the people submitting lists. If everyone had seen everything that was an orphan or better, the list would look completely different, in my opinion.

That's the beauty of going over these lists again. More time passes, people see more things, films that capture a zeitgeist might rise or fall years later. Memberships change too. One of the things that it would be great to do moving into the fourth time around for all of these decades lists (though that would be a huge task) would be a kind of compare and contrast exercise with films, looking at 'case study' titles and seeing how they might have moved up and down over the years whether due to availability or other factors. Once we get into the 2000s and later decades again, then it will be interesting to see which films that were celebrated in their 'cultural moment' stayed, dropped or even moved up positions years later.

colinr0380 wrote:One of the things that it would be great to do moving into the fourth time around for all of these decades lists (though that would be a huge task) would be a kind of compare and contrast exercise with films, looking at 'cast study' titles and seeing how they might have moved up and down over the years whether due to availability or other factors.

Are you suggesting that I add something beyond the "change in position from the prior list" that I already do?

I think it would be interesting to somehow factor in "accessibility" when comparing different interations of the lists- Do films that have always been readily available slowly lose clout over time and get replaced by lesser known films which grow in appreciation as more and more people see them? I'd imagine there'd be are three possible outcomes:
1) Studios only give the widest releases to the best films (hah!), and thus lists stay mostly stagnant regardless of availability.
2) There is no relationship between quality and availability, and as viewership increases lists move closer to a balance of widely released films and films that were initially tougher to come by.
3) Either the best stuff is suppressed, or (more likely) film enthusiasts like to fetishize stuff that is obscure: the lesser known stuff completely wipes the mainstream stuff off the lists over time.

While it would be an interesting study, I have no idea how we could objectively measure that.

swo17 wrote:Are you suggesting that I add something beyond the "change in position from the prior list" that I already do?

That's a very valuable addition but now that we are going to have lots of previous data I'm also thinking of a 'change from the previous three lists' at the point when we do the fourth decades list cycle, but perhaps only for a select few titles that might have an interesting story behind a sharp rise or sharp drop in the final result. Or to highlight a title that suddenly appeared or disappeared! But I don't want to add to the already enormous stats burden of doing such a thing, as it sounds like it would involve quite some time spent analysing the data and finding the most interesting 'stories' that the stats suggest.

Formal request to have all list tallies handwritten on parchment and notarized

colinr0380 wrote:

swo17 wrote:Are you suggesting that I add something beyond the "change in position from the prior list" that I already do?

That's a very valuable addition but now that we are going to have lots of previous data I'm also thinking of a 'change from the previous three lists' at the point when we do the fourth decades list cycle, but perhaps only for a select few titles that might have an interesting story behind a sharp rise or sharp drop in the final result. Or to highlight a title that suddenly appeared or disappeared! But I don't want to add to the already enormous stats burden of doing such a thing, as it sounds like it would involve quite some time spent analysing the data and finding the most interesting 'stories' that the stats suggest.

I'm not going to manually go through and select "interesting stories" but it actually wouldn't take that much work for me to display the change in position from each round to the next. (I would just input a column for each prior ranking in Excel and let the stats fall out by formula.) Would enough people like to see stats like this for it to be worth the effort?

23. Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2010) 87/7(1)/5 +5/-15/+49

colinr0380 wrote:More time passes, people see more things, films that capture a zeitgeist might rise or fall years later. Memberships change too. One of the things that it would be great to do moving into the fourth time around for all of these decades lists (though that would be a huge task) would be a kind of compare and contrast exercise with films, looking at 'case study' titles and seeing how they might have moved up and down over the years whether due to availability or other factors. Once we get into the 2000s and later decades again, then it will be interesting to see which films that were celebrated in their 'cultural moment' stayed, dropped or even moved up positions years later.

Colin, if you keep the number of films per list manageable, it wouldn't be that hard to do it yourself after lists in the fourth round are posted. I agree it would be interesting to see the fortunes of certain films as they fall in or out of vogue, or Criterion puts out a previously hard-to-see movie. Since which films deserve a "case study" is subjective to a degree, it makes some sense for the person who conceived the idea to do it. You could select a handful of films per list, check the rankings in the previous lists and use the TSPDT's Ranking History format: [Film]: 4 > 27 > 61 > 89 (don't have to use the more-than sign!). Swo would probably be fine with adding the information to one of the stats posts following the lists.

I suspect that swo or whoever is collating will have a pretty good sense of some of the major 'stories' of this type and could do something like this instinctually. There are also very clear instances of long unavailable films that have enjoyed recent releases, like Out 1 or A Brighter Summer Day, that are readily analysable. In the latter case it's hard to imagine that it could outdo the top ten placement it managed while it was completely unavailable officially!

Haha you guys I have done the tallying for these guys twice, total, and it was using swo's sheets and I had my girlfriend's help and it still took my like 15 hours and four tries each to get everything nailed down, and I absolutely never want to do it again. The idea of paying attention to anything at all other than data entry by the four hundredth item you put in there sounds far fetched, to me at least.

Well, I'm talking just a small number of films per decade list/nine month period. The older lists are all in one thread which would make it pretty easy (for someone other than swo) to jot down rankings from the first two iterations. Just putting that out there.

Was there ever a 20th century list mentioned here?

Edit: Just saw that an All Time list is on its way. Hmm, strange idea with this master list ...

Okay, so as of right now, the end of the Westerns Redux and the All Time List coincide in the same month, which is generally something we try to avoid, so I'm going to move the Westerns Redux six weeks down so it doesn't interfere, which means we have an open slot. However, I'm going to go fascist dictator and decide what this slot will be used for, especially since this kind of thing has been suggested and floated a lot in the past and this will be a trial run to see if it's more/less/equally successful as other mini- and full lists: After the 24 Hours or Less Mini-List, we're going to do our first Auteur List, to run six weeks (from mid-September through the beginning of November) and with the same voting rules as the mini-lists (ten votes minimum, maximum votes to be determined) for... the film (and TV, if you want) works of Alfred Hitchcock. Details to come soon.

Ribs wrote:Seinfeld mini-list follow-up?

It's probably the only other show that could sustain a full list treatment (besides maybe the Twilight Zone?)