The Lists Project

[zedz]

Personally, I expect that an all-time list would just resolve itself into a restatement of the canon, whereas the current format at least gives less well-trod cinema a fighting chance and allows for more discussion of interesting marginal fare (which, as far as I can see, is the raison d'etre of this entire exercise - I don't think any of us needs to know that, yes, 8 1/2 is rather popular).

So, it's not a project I'd be particularly interested in compiling, unless it had some interesting twist (as the forthcoming Bizarro AFI list project does), but that doesn't preclude somebody else organising one.

On the "interesting marginal fare" subject, I'm tempted to propose a list project where people are asked to contribute their most obscure darlings (e.g. a list of ten of their favourite 'unknown' or unappreciated films), where films that get more than one mention are removed from the final list rather than promoted - so the end result would be an unranked list of completely unique favourites (which would then require explanations / defenses from their nominators). There have been similar threads before, but doing it as a list with a deadline might generate more concerted and focussed contribution. Is anybody interested in contributing to such a project?

[Scharphedin2]

Is anybody interested in contributing to such a project?

I am, and I am already looking forward to reading the defenses.

[domino harvey]

On the "interesting marginal fare" subject, I'm tempted to propose a list project where people are asked to contribute their most obscure darlings (e.g. a list of ten of their favourite 'unknown' or unappreciated films), where films that get more than one mention are removed from the final list rather than promoted - so the end result would be an unranked list of completely unique favourites (which would then require explanations / defenses from their nominators). There have been similar threads before, but doing it as a list with a deadline might generate more concerted and focussed contribution. Is anybody interested in contributing to such a project?

Certainly more interesting than an all time list, but imagine how badly it could go: someone nominates say Deep Impact and because everyone else knows better than to nominate a bad movie this film is still given a write-up and a spot on The List. We all have Underrated favorites and that's what the Underrated thread is for I thought? Of course I say all this but of course if this actually happens I'm sure I'd contribute anyways.

[souvenir]

Another interesting idea, for way ahead in the future probably, might be to repeat the decades but disqualify anything that's already made a list. The Shorts and 1930s might not work for this due to potentially meager participation, but other decades would certainly showcase the more marginal fare everyone roots for. So, a Bizarro Lists Project, if you will.

[GringoTex]

On the "interesting marginal fare" subject, I'm tempted to propose a list project where people are asked to contribute their most obscure darlings

I propose an all-time list project where only films NOT on the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They? Top 1000 list are eligible.

(for those that don't know, TSPDT's Top 1000 list is created by compiling every top 10, top 100, top 1000 list known to mankind. It's the gold standard for current critical popularity.)

[domino harvey]

On the "interesting marginal fare" subject, I'm tempted to propose a list project where people are asked to contribute their most obscure darlings

I propose an all-time list project where only films NOT on the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They? Top 1000 list are eligible.

(for those that don't know, TSPDT's Top 1000 list is created by compiling every top 10, top 100, top 1000 list known to mankind. It's the gold standard for current critical popularity.)

Says who, They Shoot Pictures Don't They's editors?

[denti alligator]

On the "interesting marginal fare" subject, I'm tempted to propose a list project where people are asked to contribute their most obscure darlings

I propose an all-time list project where only films NOT on the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They? Top 1000 list are eligible.

(for those that don't know, TSPDT's Top 1000 list is created by compiling every top 10, top 100, top 1000 list known to mankind. It's the gold standard for current critical popularity.)

I second this idea. That list has 90% of the films we (as a board) have discussed in some manner or other, and covers just about every film ever thought to be "great." An all-time best films list that excluded these could be very exciting.

[GringoTex]

(for those that don't know, TSPDT's Top 1000 list is created by compiling every top 10, top 100, top 1000 list known to mankind. It's the gold standard for current critical popularity.)

Says who, They Shoot Pictures Don't They's editors?

"Gold standard" doesn't mean what you think it means.

[domino harvey]

(for those that don't know, TSPDT's Top 1000 list is created by compiling every top 10, top 100, top 1000 list known to mankind. It's the gold standard for current critical popularity.)

Says who, They Shoot Pictures Don't They's editors?

"Gold standard" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Oh, I bet it does. TSPDT has to either select which lists it chooses to acknowledge or it includes literally every list known to man for compilation-- neither achieves a "gold standard" of critical popularity, especially since no such thing could exist anyways.

[zedz]

On the "interesting marginal fare" subject, I'm tempted to propose a list project where people are asked to contribute their most obscure darlings

I propose an all-time list project where only films NOT on the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They? Top 1000 list are eligible.

(for those that don't know, TSPDT's Top 1000 list is created by compiling every top 10, top 100, top 1000 list known to mankind. It's the gold standard for current critical popularity.)

This sounds like a good option. As soon as I posted the above suggestion, I started thinking about the different ways it could go wrong (though I didn't get quite as far as Domino's ultra-perverse twist). This should be left until some time after the alternative AFI list.

Another obvious variant would be to exclude all films that have appeared on our own lists through the decades (both cycles), holding the vote after we revisit the 00s, so this would be a best of the also-rans. Let me know any other suggestions for how this could be organised. I'm tempted to say features only, since we've done the shorts list, which is sort of its own de facto best-of-the-also-rans given the scarcity of shorts on the main lists.

[Michael]

As for the All-Time List, I would not mind taking over the task if that's okay with zedz and everyone else. That's probably the easiest list to do. I can compile the All-Time List once every year as long as I live.

Let me know what you all think.

[scotty]

I don't think any of us needs to know that, yes, 8 1/2 is rather popular).

But other people do. I'm just not convinced that the "canon" is so entrenched that it should be ignored. That does nothing to combat the fact that on IMDB, 8 1/2 currently sits at no. 161 in the rankings, and more tellingly has garnered 16,000 votes as opposed to no. 160, Kill Bill Vol. 2 with 100,000 (heck, Grindhouse is at 151). The current format allows for acknowledgment of films like 8 1/2 that none of us would want to do without while allowing room for the more obscure titles that can be campaigned for before the poll and advocated as darlings afterward. I think a big part of the educational possibility in the project disappears when we decide that Fellini is too obvious. I'm sure zedz and others are frustrated in their quest to upset the canon, but as it is currently composed I don't see the decade polls as all-or-nothing. And the fact is that absent any canon at all, there is no point in actually compiling a list because only individual lists will comprise an acceptable "revision." I enjoy seeing the darlings and also-rans lists--do they really gain in power by displacing Fellini on the master list? And I'm also interested in such canonical moves the decade list chronicles: who would have predicted that L'eclisse would finish ahead of L'avventura? And it would be passing strange for a criterionforum list to exclude the majority of films in the Criterion Collection itself.

So when is that 1970s list due? I just did the new CC Amarcord last night. Go Fellini.

[Dear Catastrophe Totoro]

I enjoy seeing the darlings and also-rans lists--do they really gain in power by displacing Fellini on the master list?

Does it have anything to do with gaining power? No one is saying that Fellini is a poor filmmaker, simply that there are other films as exceptional as these well-known masterworks that are not getting any recognition. We know that people love 8 1/2; it was number 10 on my list. However, Tokyo Olympiad and Double Suicide preceded it, ranking at eight and nine. Tokyo Olympiad has been one of my favorite films for years, but Double Suicide was new to me. I am grateful for those who fought for this film through this list project, since it is now a personal favorite of mine as well. In fact, it's terrifying that a film this perfect, fearless, and ingenious receives virtually no recognition, even though it has a spine number!

Also note that Harakiri was presumably an also-ran on the first 60s list, but ranked as the twenty-eighth best film of the 60s in our new list. What made the difference? Why is it now part of the canon? If it didn't have such a consumer-friendly, two-disc edition, and if Kobayashi's name hadn't become more familiar with Kwaidan, does anyone doubt it would have been an also-ran again this year? The canon seems subject to name recognition, since without that rock star status attached to a director's name, one film about ritual suicide in Japan (Double Suicide) might be passed up for another (Harakiri). Just a thought.

Here's another way of looking at it: through this list, I learned of several new films that are now some of my favorite films, ever. That pushed other films that I previously thought unbeatable either to the end of my list, or off of it completely. If you make a top 50 list of the best films of all time, you would have to exclude several hundred films that you would wish to include, correct? In other words, next time the 60s list comes around, I sincerely hope 8 1/2 has been "displaced" to the twenties, at least.

[Michael]

I find it totally absurd to fret over 8 1/2 leading the list. What is wrong with the film having so many lovers? It's not the fault of the film or Fellini. If people love the film enough to have it leading the list, then let it be and it deserves it. Who would have though L'eclisse made #2?

[scotty]

In other words, next time the 60s list comes around, I sincerely hope 8 1/2 has been "displaced" to the twenties, at least.

What's the agenda here? Why should I hope 8 1/2 is displaced to the twenties if it remains my Number 2? Is the idea to congratulate ourselves for our elite tastes, rarified even among cinephiles, or to simply state what our favorite films are? The process you are referring to, that of revising and displacing favorites, happens all the time. After all, 8 1/2 was my number one for the 1960s--until I saw Andrei Rublev. The goal of displacing established classics seems perverse to me. All anyone needs is an open mind for films that are new (as 8 1/2 certainly was at one time for all of us) and the darlings and also rans lists are great resources for that. If Fellini falls, he falls, but making that some kind of goal is a bit willful and just as distorting as the admittedly problematic notion of a canon.

[HerrSchreck]

Well I think there are a bunch of dynamics going on here. Many of us read these lists (I confess I uh didnt get my cough 60's list in in time) to learn about flicks we've never heard of before.. match them with the tastes of the listmaker... and decide what it is we'd like to investigate ourselves. Seeing the same old stuff thats been sitting on our shelves for years is kinda boring.

That said, the scenario I just mentioned has nothing to do with Listing What You Think Are Your Favorite Films... it has more to do with looking to share eclectic tastes. Which is more what the forum en masse is for, rather than the Lists Project.

That said...

If all you do is buy Criterion Collection discs, a few moc's, Kinos & bfi's to fill in gaps here and there, entering the lists projects is inevitable going to be an excercise in Reordering the same 65 classics.. i e "what order would YOU put the Real Obvious Ones In?" It becomes an excercise in Showing How Criterion-- and the combination of their tastes and the random happenstance of what they could & couldnt get their hands on rightswise-- informs what you think is "the best". Which is pretty damned boring.

I'd be interested in seeing Best Of All-Time lsts from a few folks here.. because I'd been wondering about it all along. Sadly however, the bulk of the lists from most will be KANE-ified tripe.

[zedz]

I don't think any of us needs to know that, yes, 8 1/2 is rather popular).

But other people do. I'm just not convinced that the "canon" is so entrenched that it should be ignored.

Well I'd argue that on this forum the canon is well-known and well entrenched, and I don't think we should pretend that our little list-making exercise is travelling far beyond this forum.

I think a big part of the educational possibility in the project disappears when we decide that Fellini is too obvious. I'm sure zedz and others are frustrated in their quest to upset the canon, but as it is currently composed I don't see the decade polls as all-or-nothing.

I think you're missing the point of what I'm proposing, which is not a replacement of the current list process, but the addition of a one-off non-canonical list, which would be much more useful for identifying great underappreciated films.

I don't have anything against the canon (what could I do about it if I did?), and I'm interested in observing the glacial shifts in it that this project somewhat illuminates, but I'm much more interested in seeing great new films, and the fringes of the lists are where I can find them. Thus the proposal to make the fringes momentarily central.

So when is that 1970s list due? I just did the new CC Amarcord last night. Go Fellini.

It's generally four months on from the last one, so that would be the beginning of March. BUT, it's worth considering the overall cycle, and the possible desirability of arranging for our return to the 00s list to coincide with the close of the current decade.

The current calendar would look like this:

March 2008 - 1970s
July 2008 - 1980s
November 2008 - 1990s
March 2009 - 2000s

If we stretch these out (maybe by allowing for some of these additional lists in the meantime, including the AFI one), we could have the 2000s list at the beginning of the 2010s, if any of us are still around by then. Any opinions for or against?

[Dear Catastrophe Totoro]

In other words, next time the 60s list comes around, I sincerely hope 8 1/2 has been "displaced" to the twenties, at least.

What's the agenda here? Why should I hope 8 1/2 is displaced to the twenties if it remains my Number 2? Is the idea to congratulate ourselves for our elite tastes, rarified even among cinephiles, or to simply state what our favorite films are? The process you are referring to, that of revising and displacing favorites, happens all the time. After all, 8 1/2 was my number one for the 1960s--until I saw Andrei Rublev. The goal of displacing established classics seems perverse to me. All anyone needs is an open mind for films that are new (as 8 1/2 certainly was at one time for all of us) and the darlings and also rans lists are great resources for that. If Fellini falls, he falls, but making that some kind of goal is a bit willful and just as distorting as the admittedly problematic notion of a canon.

Aren't you being slightly presumptuous by assuming that I am trying to manipulate the results of a internet best-of list for some "perverse" personal agenda? If you even state that the process I am referring to happens all the time, why am I suddenly satan incarnate? My question is, when do we graduate as students of an art that we love, and why would we ever wish to be as self-satisfied to presume that we have found everything worth finding? Isn't that why we revise this list from year to year? To learn from the discoveries of others? There were several films in my top ten that were new to me, which means 8 1/2 fell accordingly. I am personally delighted by this, excited even. It means the canon is a starting place, not a finishing line. Hell, even the "elitists" of these boards have a to-see list. It is unreasonable to believe that I will find a point where I stop displacing my favorite films, and personally, I have to wonder why you would want to, if that is what you are implying.

Edit: I think I know where our miscommunication is taking place. I meant displaced to the twenties for my own list, not on the master list. There is no reason a favorite film should be displaced because it is "obvious" or something, I was just mentioning that, for me, I see that my knowledge of film, and from the 60s especially, is extremely limited, even to the extent of missing out on entire movements or cultures, and that this seems to be in step with the canon, the reputation of certain films, and the lack of availability of others.

[scotty]

Totoro, we're actually in complete agreement. You can be perverse without being Satan, by the way. I expect you are far from either. As for Schreck's decrying of boredom in the lists, the only thing that should be judged to be boring is the film itself. Anyone bored by Kane should absolutely leave it off their list. It keeps slipping down mine.

[zedz]

Revised voting schedule, as floated in the 70s thread and having attracted three positive comments and no negatives. This will allow the 2000s thread to coincide with the end of the decade and leave plenty of wiggle room for other lists to happen in between, if people are motivated to organise them.

May 2008 - 1970s
December 2008 - 1980s
June 2009 - 1990s
January 2010 - 2000s

[jonp72]

I just wanted to remind everybody that the Alternative AFI lists (or as zedz calls it, "my bizarro AFI list") are due on December 31st of this year. That leaves less than 2 1/2 weeks to get in your top 50 list of American films that have not appeared on the American Film Institute Top 100 list.

So far there are 53 films eligible to be on the list (i.e., they have two or more votes). I'd like to see at least 100 films eligible to be on the list, so keep those lists coming. As an added incentive, I can privately send a current Top 10 list to anybody who sends me a list (or anybody who has already sent me a list).

I won't divulge more details, but the current top 10 includes two directors with two films each. There are three 1940s films, three 1950s films, three 1970s films, and one film from the 1980s.

[videozor]

This was reported on early fall 2007

Does anybody know what films were selected?

[Michael]

Revised voting schedule, as floated in the 70s thread and having attracted three positive comments and no negatives. This will allow the 2000s thread to coincide with the end of the decade and leave plenty of wiggle room for other lists to happen in between, if people are motivated to organise them.

May 2008 - 1970s
December 2008 - 1980s
June 2009 - 1990s
January 2010 - 2000s

Just wanting to double check. Is May 31st the deadline for 1970s?

[zedz]

Just wanting to double check. Is May 31st the deadline for 1970s?

Correct! Sorry for any ambiguity - a few people got theirs in for the beginning of May. As usual, if anyone had to rush and wants to amend their submitted lists, rejigs will be accepted right up to the deadline.

[zedz]

Reminder to all those wanting to contribute to the 1970s list project: 5 days to go. PM me your 50 favourite films of the decade (according to imdb) in order of preference.