The Lists Project

[zedz]

Great list, lubitsch. I didn't want to start an Early Cinema discussion thread until the 00s List was done, but this will make a great initial post. Not a lot to add until I have some more time to think about it, but:

Edition Filmmuseum also has Anders als die andern, Nerven (definitely a contender) and Crazy Cinematographe (a compilation of early oddities I haven't seen). The BFI's Early Cinema: Primitives and Pioneers is a strong two-disc intro. And John Ford's 1917 Bucking Broadway was issued on DVD with an edition of the French journal Cinema - as far as I know the only Ford from this period available.

[Peacock]

lubitsch, can you add Gance's La Roue (flicker alley), Sjostrom's Phantom Carriage (tartan), and Stroheim's Queen Kelly and Foolish Wives (Kino) to the list?

oh and Greed (itunes) - or not!

[zedz]

lubitsch, can you add Gance's La Roue (flicker alley), Sjostrom's Phantom Carriage (tartan), and Stroheim's Queen Kelly and Foolish Wives (Kino) to the list?

oh and Greed (itunes) - or not!

Wrong decade! Their time will come.

[Peacock]

Oh my bad!! Didn't realize it wasn't an entire silent era list this time round.
This will be exciting!!!!

[Vic Pardo]

Remember, Caligari is 1919, and that's a film that belongs with the '20s, not the teens.

According to IMDB, which is our guide for these things, Caligari is 1920.

The IMDB should never be anybody's guide when it comes to these things. Maltin says 1919 and that's good enough for me.

[Tommaso]

That is true, but the idea of using imdb as a reference is to make sure that films don't show up in lists of two consecutive decades and thus have their votes divided. It is just a handy tool, nothing more; historic validity is not implied. Otherwise, you'd have lengthy discussions on every film whose release year is debated. And there are much more obscure ones than "Caligari".

[lubitsch]

Remember, Caligari is 1919, and that's a film that belongs with the '20s, not the teens.

According to IMDB, which is our guide for these things, Caligari is 1920.

The IMDB should never be anybody's guide when it comes to these things. Maltin says 1919 and that's good enough for me.

The film had his first screening on 27th February 1920 in Berlin. It's a bit silly to use Maltin as final word and verdict in such matters.

That is true, but the idea of using imdb as a reference is to make sure that films don't show up in lists of two consecutive decades and thus have their votes divided. It is just a handy tool, nothing more; historic validity is not implied. Otherwise, you'd have lengthy discussions on every film whose release year is debated. And there are much more obscure ones than "Caligari".

There's however one thing to be considered: the imdb is a work-in-progress and as such subject to changes. There are multiple films of which I know that their year changed and naturally this means that a film can shift into another decade. Not so long ago Joseph Lewis GUN CRAZY was listed as 1949, now it's 1950 and belongs to a later decade. Unfortunately it's nearly impossible to recognize that for our purposes.

[zedz]

There's however one thing to be considered: the imdb is a work-in-progress and as such subject to changes. There are multiple films of which I know that their year changed and naturally this means that a film can shift into another decade. Not so long ago Joseph Lewis GUN CRAZY was listed as 1949, now it's 1950 and belongs to a later decade. Unfortunately it's nearly impossible to recognize that for our purposes.

This is true, and has negatively impacted on individual lists in a few instances (the first time through the decades I ended up not being able to vote for one of my absolute favourite films in any list, but I survived), but it's only an issue when the imdb shuffle occurs between the closing of two lists (and shifts a film back in time). At any rate, it's definitely preferable to clogging the threads with squabbling and litigation over specific release dates or having to deal with numerous vote splits.

Nothing about the entire exercise is definitive, anyway, and its whole framework (dividing by decade) is essentially arbitrary, so the arbitrariness or incorrectness of any particular imdb call is a minor irritant at best.

[zedz]

For those who haven't been following the dedicated thread, a reminder that your 2000s lists are due in a week, at the end of January. PM me with your favourite fifty films in order of preference. More detailed instructions can be found at the start of the thread.

[lubitsch]

We're nearing the pre-1920 list and I've edited my post from time to time to improve it and include new information.
However I would suggest that the time until the vote should be a bit shorter than the usual six months and maybe 40 films instead of 50 would be more appropriate. I've seen almost anything from the era I wanted to see and 50 films is quite a large number for the small amount of available features (even considering all the shorts).

[Tommaso]

the small amount of available features (even considering all the shorts).

Which raises the question whether 'documentary'-style films like the early Lumières or Mitchell&Kenyon should be allowed onto that list (an emphatic 'yes' from me!) and how to vote for them. It would be hard to single out any M&K-film as particularly important, although I certainly have my favourites.

And yes, a shorter period than six months is probably a good idea. Even if you haven't seen so much from the period, the general brevity of those films - with a few exceptions - makes catching up comparatively easy. And is 1920 established as the watershed now? Just because some other years had been suggested as well a while ago.

[reno dakota]

And is 1920 established as the watershed now? Just because some other years had been suggested as well a while ago.

I believe so:

So let's tentatively go for Early Cinema (-1919) and 1920s, dates to be decided. It's still going to be some time off, so all eyes on the (other) 00s now.

[knives]

We're nearing the pre-1920 list and I've edited my post from time to time to improve it and include new information.
However I would suggest that the time until the vote should be a bit shorter than the usual six months and maybe 40 films instead of 50 would be more appropriate. I've seen almost anything from the era I wanted to see and 50 films is quite a large number for the small amount of available features (even considering all the shorts).

I think fifty is a fine number, whomever is counting will probably want to punch me for insisting on those ten. I can name off the top of my head over ten features that could be in contention, let alone all of the shorts, and I'm completely ignorant of the period. Reducing the number seems pointless.

[domino harvey]

I suspect the submission rate will be far far lower for these early lists anyways

[GringoTex]

Would anybody else be interested in a quick-turn-around all time list between the 2000s list and the pre-1920s list? I think our community could provide a canon snapshot different from what we're used to seeing.

[domino harvey]

Of all films ever, or more specific?

[swo17]

We're nearing the pre-1920 list and I've edited my post from time to time to improve it and include new information.
However I would suggest that the time until the vote should be a bit shorter than the usual six months and maybe 40 films instead of 50 would be more appropriate. I've seen almost anything from the era I wanted to see and 50 films is quite a large number for the small amount of available features (even considering all the shorts).

This is a project I'm looking forward to but it will very much be a learning experience for me. So it's hard for me to say how long such a project should take or how many titles should go on the lists. There is this initial suggestion from zedz:

I know that several forum members have been exploring pre-1920s filmmaking over the past several years, and there's much more of it available than ever before, so I'd like to gauge interest in a one-off 'Early Cinema' (pre-1920) list project, maybe with individual lists of 25 titles and a consensus list of fifty? I'd be happy to tally the votes if there are enough potential participants to justify it.

I think these terms of the project would be best decided by a few members here who have seen most of the films and have a good idea of how long it would take a novice to go through them all (some multiple times), and about how many of them could go on a list without it starting to feel watered down with less deserving titles. Alternatively, we could just set the deadline at the beginning, and then, with about a month left, after more people have a better feel for the period, we can start to have the discussion about how many titles should go on the lists, both individually and collectively.

As far as the timing of the deadline goes, I would like to have a chance to see everything in contention that I can get my hands on (even the stuff I've already seen), and would prefer not to feel rushed. About how long would it take to watch everything that's readily available from the period if I watched like 10 hours a week?

[knives]

My fear with a list of 25 is that the overlap would be fairly small. Even in the present list thins are spread thin, considering how much is available from this period it would be easy to have three or four 25 lists with no overlap.

[lubitsch]

Up to 1913 we have very few features (more than 40 minutes length) in contention, no more than 20 films. From 1914-1918 I've seen 17 features on average each year and from 1919 31 features, all told I know roughly 130 features, but few will want (or need) to match that. The average length of a feature film is however significatly lower than for later decades, many ranging in the 60-70 minutes level. There are a few super-epics like Intolerance and J'accuse but that's really a big exception. As for the shorts it again depends how deep you wanna go, you should have at least seen Movies begin, Griffith Biographs and Chaplin's Essanays and Mutuals. While I think that every film is eligible, it's a matter of taste if one really puts down a Brighton school film in a top list. They are very historically important, sure, but are they among the really great ones?
Nobody should have even the slightest problems to crash the 50 films lever due to all these shorts around and I also don't think there's any problem with a lack of overlap simply due to the small number of available films. Would be very surprised not to see, say Easy Street or Intolerance on any list.
I find it however difficult to stretch my list up to 50 really worthy films, roughly 40 is the number I can come up with, more would mean merely padding out the list. After we're dealing with a really minor though nevertheless fascinating period of cinema, so I wouldn't keep the same rules as for e.g. the 90s. No need for any bad conscience and let's keep in mind that the more static nature of 10s cinema might be going on the nerves of the participants if they limit themselves exclusively to the era.

[reno dakota]

There are a few super-epics like Intolerance and J'accuse but that's really a big exception.

Are we treating each episode of Fantômas, Les Vampires, and Judex as a separate film?

[FerdinandGriffon]

Is there a preferred format for our ballots?

[Tommaso]

About how long would it take to watch everything that's readily available from the period if I watched like 10 hours a week?

Extremely difficult to say, especially as 'readily available' is a very loose term to define. If you look only at what's available in the USA it might be accomplished in eight or ten weeks, I'd say, perhaps more. At least Kino's 5-disc-set of "The movies begin" is mandatory viewing, as is the trimmed-down Gaumont set (also Kino), the first Kino Griffith box, some individual Kino releases (like the Sjöströms and Lubitschs) and of course the three Feuillade serials (Image and Flicker Alley). If you include European releases (from the BFI and the DFI, for instance), you'd probably need much longer, but the effort would be worth it. And then there are of course always films that are extremely important, like some early Gance, which are only 'floating around' without any proper release. Which doesn't make them less valuable or eligible in my view.

So, it's really hard to give you good advice on that question, especially as you'd surely like to see some films made at a later date in between. If anyone has never seen a film from that period, I suspect it will be tough to catch up with it in less than six months. But then I suppose, most who want to take part in the poll will already have seen a good share of the more important films from the period.

EDIT: have seen that Lubitsch has just written more or less the same in terms of must-see recommendations. But I'll let my post stand as it is.

[swo17]

Yeah, when I said "readily available," I was referring to lubitsch's post from a few pages back with all of those recommendations. I've seen a few sets like Landmarks of Early Film, several Griffiths, and Les Vampires before, but I'd want to watch most of those again, and pretty much everything else would be new to me. I'm thinking I could comfortably get through everything that I'm going to be able to see by the end of June 2010. Would that be too long of a wait for those that have already seen a lot of these films?

[Tommaso]

Fine with me, personally, as I also would have to re-watch many of them. And like Lubitsch says, especially the films from the 1910s can get a little on your nerves if you don't watch anything else in between. I wouldn't even want to watch 20s films exclusively, even though that is my favourite era of filmmaking.

Rene Dakota: I think we should really treat the Feuillade serials as one film, otherwise the votes will be completely split-up and the films will get a far lower ranking than they deserve.

[reno dakota]

I think we should really treat the Feuillade serials as one film, otherwise the votes will be completely split-up and the films will get a far lower ranking than they deserve.

I completely agree, but I wonder if that will run afoul of the established rules for the project. Can we get a verdict, zedz?