criterionforum.org

Fellow My Son John Fan, reveal thyself.

It's a statistical guarantee that the more lists that are submitted, the more canonical the compilation will appear.

My biggest disappointment is the absence of Boetticher. I'm very happy about the high ranking of Steel Helmet. Thank gawd Salt of the Earth missed out.

Michael wrote:I had five films on my list that no-one else had The Naked Night

Do you mean the Bergman film? I had this too, but under a different name, "Evening of the Jesters" (which is, I think, the meaning of the Swedish title). It also goes by "Sawdust and Tinsel".

Langlois68 wrote:My biggest disappointment is the absence of Boetticher.

I was the lone vote for Decision at Sundown, apparantly.

Also the loner for DeToth's materful Day of the Outlaw. And several Mann Westerns too. (At least Man of the West made it!)

flixyflox wrote:Jeez I thought I had 80% of Yang Kwei Fei!

I had it at 30 on my list, which should account for 21 points out of the 26 it received. However, I had it as Yang Kwei Fei not Princess Yang Kwei Fei as it appears in the list. Maybe my vote didn't count.

yoshimori wrote:

Michael wrote:I had five films on my list that no-one else had The Naked Night

Do you mean the Bergman film? I had this too, but under a different name, "Evening of the Jesters" (which is, I think, the meaning of the Swedish title). It also goes by "Sawdust and Tinsel".

Michael? Yes, I meant that film.

I think we need to decide whether the individual segments of anthology films like RoGoPaG, Spirits of the Dead, The Beautiful Swindlers, Boccaccio '70 etc. are eligible on their own or if you have to vote for (and thus have seen) the whole thing. Intuitively, I think I'd prefer to count these films in their entirety only, but perhaps a special case could be made for La Ricotta.

Also, do we vote for the whole Dog Star Man or should votes be given to the individual parts?

(By the way, zedz, Window Water Baby Moving belongs on the 1960s list, according to IMDB.)

ola t wrote:I think we need to decide whether the individual segments of anthology films like RoGoPaG, Spirits of the Dead, The Beautiful Swindlers, Boccaccio '70 etc. are eligible on their own or if you have to vote for (and thus have seen) the whole thing. Intuitively, I think I'd prefer to count these films in their entirety only, but perhaps a special case could be made for La Ricotta. . .

(By the way, zedz, Window Water Baby Moving belongs on the 1960s list, according to IMDB.)

Damn, you just can't rely on those filmmakers to know when they made their film, can you? I was going by Camper, Brakhage, Canyon Cinema etc. (Still, now I can vote for it twice!)

I don't mean to be rude about the glorious tradition of 60s portmanteau films, but I don't know if any of them would make it if they had to be considered as a whole. All of the ones I've seen have been at least half filler. If there was such a thing as GoPa it might have a chance. In practical terms, it's probably sensible to break them up for the purpose of the vote, as the likely contenders (La Ricotta and Antoine et Collette, for example) have definitely earnt their critical independence.

One argument for keeping Dog Star Man as a unit is that serials were not divided up for the silent era list.

An argument against is the division of Ivan the Terrible into its two parts. But in that case, I assume the reason has much to do with the fact that the two halves were released in different decades. If Dog Star Man had spanned 1959-1961 rather than 1962-1964, would we be more tempted to split it up for this project?

Looking toward results, I say keep it together. If we don't, faced with using up five votes to honor the whole series, I'd likely pick only one segment, and odds are it wouldn't be the same segment others were picking.

How about this? Dog Star Man is one film, and so are all the omnibus films (unless they have a separate IMDb page listing).

What about the Up documentaries, or are they not considered as cinematically released?

Am I the only one that voted for the individual Samurai Trilogy films?

Here are the most-represented directors from the silents to the 50s lists:

Hitchcock - 22
Chaplin – 11
Hawks - 11
Lang – 11
Ozu - 11
Lubitsch – 10
Mizoguchi - 10
Renoir - 10
Keaton - 9
Bunuel – 6
Eisenstein - 6
Ford - 6
Dreyer – 6
Griffith – 6
Huston – 6
Kurosawa - 6
Murnau – 5

My 1960s list is done. Matt apparently remains in his cave so what are we gonna do?

When is the deadline?

hey, i have a question/request that i hope is topic appropriate - i feel it is, if there is any disagreement, i apologize in advance.

i was wondering if after we get through all these lists if there is or could be a plan to do less specific lists - specifically a pre '50's, 50's to 70's, 70's onward, and then an all time list? i think it would be interesting to see how people's lists changed when they had more time to work with. i know i personally would have a harder time, but it would be interesting to see what films mean more to me compared to other time periods. just a suggestion, anybody with me?

What I like about these lists is the eclecticism of them, and I reckon that the bigger the time period dealt with, the more homogenous and canonical the lists are likely to get. Still, an 'all-time' list seems pretty inevitable after we reach the 90s. (Actually, an all-time shorts list could actually be interesting, as short films have been somewhat shortchanged in the current lists).

By the time we get there, though, I'd be more interested in revisiting the existing lists, to see how people's tastes have changed, and how titles newly available on DVD have impacted on our choices.

Actually, since I'm less interested in the aggregate lists and more interested in the weird, individual selections that fail to make them, I'd like to encourage posters for the sixties list to defend their darlings. After the results have been tallied, how about arguing the case for your highest ranked film that failed to make the cut?

zedz wrote:I'd like to encourage posters for the sixties list to defend their darlings.

After the results have been tallied, how about arguing the case for your highest ranked film that failed to make the cut?

Maybe we could have a thread entitled "Defend Your Darlings" expressly for that purpose. Maybe "Defend Your Darlings - 1950's list", etc. I'd definitely be into that, and I'm sure there are some others out there who would be, too.

I think the thing that really is most interesting about this listmaking is not having it confirmed that you were "right" in considering 8 1/2 to be the greatest film of the 60's, but to be challenged by the inclusion of movies like Carnival of Souls or The Servant, which you may have not really considered before.

It's all about being exposed to new films and the love they inspire. I think the idea of defending those darlings (in one venue (read: thread) or another) falls directly in line with that aim.

I already have a few 60's films that I'm preparing to defend, because I'm almost positive nobody else will vote for them, and that makes me a sad panda.

lord_clyde wrote:I already have a few 60's films that I'm preparing to defend, because I'm almost positive nobody else will vote for them, and that makes me a sad panda.

Well, I do think there seems to be a sort of unspoken rule about soliciting votes for your bastard children before the final tally. Or maybe there isn't. Psah, maybe everyone else is doing it, and I'm the only one who isn't.

But, assuming we shouldn't be soliciting votes to preserve the pure subjectivity of the polls, on May 1st, we can start to talk about them and try to make you a happy panda.

EDIT: See this thread

Hrossa wrote:

lord_clyde wrote:I already have a few 60's films that I'm preparing to defend, because I'm almost positive nobody else will vote for them, and that makes me a sad panda.

Well, I do think there seems to be a sort of unspoken rule about soliciting votes for your bastard children before the final tally.

Oops.

If there is, I think I just broke it in the other thread. Does that make me a bad person?

(Actually, there are probably a lot of people who would reckon that liking that particular film would make me a bad person.)

You're not a bad person. Now, if I were to publicly declare that Orgazmo will top my 90's list, and then I send everyone pms offering money to put Orgazmo on their lists, that would probably be against the rules.

Note: Orgazmo will probably not make my list. But maybe it will. But it probably won't. But maybe. . . it will. TERRIBLE zombies.

Wouldn't it be fun to make a noughties half-decade list (2000-04) after we've done the 90s? The fact that no canon has been formed yet should make the results fairly unpredictable and exciting. I can only think of a handful of films that I'm confident would make the top twenty, and of course I may be wrong about them, too.

I actually was hoping we might step up the process this summer and do a list a month or something. We could do the 70's in June, 80's in July, and 90's in August.

I'd also just assumed we would do the Oughts as well.

The nice thing about having two months at least to compile my list is that I end up changing it a lot over that period due to all of the films from that decade I'm inspired to see. It's been a very healthy impetus to adjust my film diet.

If we do plan to step up the compilation process, I'd be more than happy to compile the list during one of the summer months.

I already have my 70s, 80s, and 90s lists ready, so bring it on.

Actually, I'd rather preserve the current gap between lists. It takes at least that long for my memory to start functioning properly, and even then I forget things. It also gives me a chance to catch up on important unseen or half-forgotten films (when they're available).

tristan wrote:I can take over the duty again. It won't be as promptly assembled as this time, but it will get done. Just send the lists to [email protected].

Wait, so is tristan not compiling? I sent him my list. I'm confused now.