The Lists Project

[essrog]

I'd like to chime in on swo's side in terms of the timeframe. I might be the only member who's using the upcoming pre-20s list as his first-ever lists project submission, and am hoping this era is the first of several I'll participate in (in fact, though I never make New Year's resolutions, I resolved to submit a pre-20s list). Other than Birth of a Nation, I'm starting pretty much from scratch and could use the time. That being said, like swo, I also don't want to hold anybody up. Just wondering how many other under-20s virgins like me are out there.

[domino harvey]

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?

If counting the serials as one film is against the rules, the rules should be changed

[knives]

Considering IMDB seems to be god on these matters most of the serials are already one film, Les Vampires for example. The only real question marks I'm seeing is Fantomas, which has five entries and spiders which has two (one of which is crossing the decade line). The bigger question may be directors credits, but the answer is probably when in doubt, IMDB too.

As for time, June is more than perfect.

[Tommaso]

I might be the only member who's using the upcoming pre-20s list as his first-ever lists project submission.

Nope, I will be a first-timer, too. When I joined this forum, I think the project was in the 50s or 60s and I felt totally incompetent at the time about these decades. This might have changed now, but I still feel like a virgin about most films created after 1965 or so, some favourite directors aside... But with the new run, I hope I can get up to the present time in the next few years.

[Dr Amicus]

Considering IMDB seems to be god on these matters most of the serials are already one film, Les Vampires for example. The only real question marks I'm seeing is Fantomas, which has five entries and spiders which has two (one of which is crossing the decade line).

I was going to raise the issue of The Spiders as well. I'd be happy with the (slightly messy) compromise of taking single director series as one film (ignorance alert - any serials out there with multiple directors?) except where they cross the 1920 boundary. Having only seen Fantomas and The Spiders, I don't know how typical they are - but Fantomas seems to me much more consistent in quality whereas Part 1 of Spiders I felt was considerably superior to Part 2. So in this case it works for me - Part 1 is currently looking to be very high on my pre 1920s list but Part 2 probably wont be anywhere near the next one.

[lubitsch]

Since the imdb isn't consistent about that ... for me a multi-part film is a film, albeit a very long one. I'd place The Spiders in the 10s (not that it would make my top 50).
As for the watching period, I skipped through my film list, adding up estimate running times. I really think that few people will cross the 100 hours limit and that already includes a rather thorough run through the decade. Assuming a 10 hours per week limoit, I think three months are absolutely sufficient for the pre-1920 era. It's really a much smaller affair than anything else.

[denti alligator]

I wish I could have been active in the 00s list, but I'll be back for this early cinema one, to be sure.

What are the advantages/disadvantages to having The Movies Begin over the Edison set? I want to get one of these.

[Tommaso]

"The Movies Begin" includes a lot more European films, and even though the Melies disc might be superfluous now that the Flicker Alley edition(s) exist, I still think it's a fantastic survey of some of the most important films made in the earliest years of the medium. We get the key Lumière films, some great stuff from Pathé ("Aladin"!) and also key works from Britain (a fine selection from R.W. Paul, for instance, though of course the BFI disc with the complete surviving Paul works is superior). The Edison box, which I haven't seen , provides an in-depth view of the films of that company, and that's great, too, but it simply is just about ONE company. As the "Movies begin"-set also has some of the Edison films (including the seminal "Dream of a Rarebit Fiend", for instance), you get some impressions about the Edison company there as well. Of course in an ideal world you'd have both sets, but for a good overview of those early years I really can't think of anything better than the "Movies begin"-box.

[Sloper]

Yes, 'Movies Begin' (which covers similar ground to the smaller BFI 'Primitives and Pioneers' set) gives you a good survey of classic and important films from the era, whereas the Edison set gives you about 12 hours of Edison films - a lot of them are frankly tedious, but there are some mind-blowing gems buried in there. Worth getting for 'The Passer-by' alone. You get lots of interviews with dry academics as well, which are mostly informative. It's very useful for giving you a more thorough impression of the kind of films being turned out in these early years - the run-of-the-mill stuff as well as the classics. Indeed, the films Edison's company was producing around 1908 actually got bad reviews at the time, since they were rapidly being outclassed by those up-and-coming folks at the Biograph company.

I just saw Griffith's 'The Country Doctor' (from 1909) on one of the 'More Treasures' discs. I've seen quite a few of his Biograph shorts, but - wow...

[lubitsch]

We should slowly create a new thread for the pre-1920 era before this thread here gets flooded in specific discussion.
Zedz, are planning to do it with rules, time frame and so on?

[Tommaso]

Yes, 'Movies Begin' (which covers similar ground to the smaller BFI 'Primitives and Pioneers' set)

Actually, as far as films and even running order are concerned, the BFI set is exactly the same as "Movies Begin" Vol.2 and 3. The only exception is the addition of "The Great Train Robbery", which however is on Vol.1 of the Kino set. In other words, if you have the Kino set, the BFI becomes totally superfluous. Even the Barry Salt commentary is on both editions.

[RobertB]

I don't know where to post this. Hope this is ok. If you are looking for Swedish silent films, some released by Kino, you can get them from Sweden as a boxed set, with english subtitles. I think it's exactly the same contents on the discs as the Kino. These are restorations done in Sweden. http://www.discshop.se/shop/ds_produkt. ... vies&&ref=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; They ship outside Sweden. I don't know what the postage will be, but the price for the box is a bargain, under £28. Move this post if it's in the wrong place. And let me know if anybody needs help with the swedish site.

A Man There Was ( Terje Vigen ) - Victor Sjöström 1917
Sir Arne's Treasure (Herr Arnes pengar) - Mauritz Stiller 1919
Erotikon - Mauritz Stiller 1920
The Phantom Chariot ( Körkarlen ) - Victor Sjöström 1921
Witchcraft Through the Ages ( Häxan ) - Benjamin Christensen 1922
The Saga of Gosta Berling (Gösta Berlings saga) - Mauritz Stiller 1924

[tojoed]

Wow! Thankyou, Robert. I think I can work my way round their website, but if I have any trouble, I'll contact you. It works out at about £35 including postage.

[swo17]

A potential problem we hadn't anticipated--I put as many of the titles from lubitsch's post on my Netflix queue as I could, and a very significant portion of them are described as having a "short wait." I guess they'd never anticipated the possibility of a mad rush on the films of Egveni Bauer. Just be careful with those discs when you get them guys, cuz there's only so many to go around!

[domino harvey]

Short wait means more likely that your local distro doesn't have all of the titles and you'll have to get them farmed in from bigger markets

[swo17]

Peter Watkins' La commune was on "short wait" at the top of my queue for approximately the last six months of the 2000s list project. I ended up having to get it another way.

[domino harvey]

I've had all four North American copies serving as a coaster set

[lubitsch]

Any further opinions on the time frame and the number of films to be voted for? We can leave it with 50 films and those who can't come up with enough films may leave a blank at the bottom of their list.
As for the time frame, I've checked the number of features I've seen and it's exactly 137, many of them in the 40-75 minutes range. For the 20s the number already triples, for the 30s it's six times the amount, not taking the considerably shorter length into account. Can we agree on end of april, middle of may for the list submission? 120-140 hours of watching time (10 hours per week) is really more than enough I think.
I prepare a starter post for the project tomorrow if zedz doesn't object, copying and editing my viewing guide plus the rules.

[Tommaso]

I prepare a starter post for the project tomorrow if zedz doesn't object, copying and editing my viewing guide plus the rules.

Zedz stated in the summer that he would like someone else to take the project over anyway (see page 34 of this thread). So just go ahead, I'd say, unless zedz has changed his mind or has already found someone else.

[HerrSchreck]

I'd say it's in good hands.

[Gregory]

I appreciate lubitsch's efforts in compiling as complete as possible a list of pre-1920s cinema on DVD, and I have no objections to his stating his own personal preferences in the course of the discussion thread.
Nevertheless, I'm a little troubled by the amount of guidance in the opening post (as opposed to a mere list) and by the way films of a privileged group are highlighted and tied into the rules for eligibility of people's lists. I can't see why there should be any place for distinguishing quasi-essentials at the outset, let alone for a pre-ordained set of films that are prerequisite viewing, which is what we have now. In the past, all eligible films have been on as level a playing-field as possible.
I can certainly understand discouraging voting on the basis of insufficient viewing. But it seems like a good number of folks are going to have their work cut out for them, and even if they make a diligent effort it's a safe bet that time and/or funds will run out and a lot of eligible films will have to be missed. Saying exactly which films are not OK to miss and which are more OK to miss can only bias the outcome.
On principle, I'm mistrustful of the canon of "the collective wisdom of scholars," as well as any other. In addition to the basic issue of reserving the right to fundamentally disagree with any consensus, past or present, there is the issue of how arbitrary the canon is, in many ways. Many worthy films have not been written about much or appreciated by fans because for most of their history they were not even readily available to be seen. That has changed a lot recently, so it's arguably a better time to reassess than ever before. The results of this exercise will only be interesting to the extent that we can allow this to happen.
Potentially adding to the arbitrariness, I notice that some really major, critically-important films are not highlighted, such as Regeneration and J'Accuse.

I felt I needed to raise these concerns if I'm going be able to continue participating in this. I hope nothing I've said will be taken personally or otherwise in a way I didn't intend.

[swo17]

I consider lubitsch's first post in the pre-1920s thread a valuable resource and am trying to watch everything I can that is mentioned there (and elsewhere throughout the thread) but I think I tend to agree with Gregory here. For the most part, I try to just ignore the highlights, but I'm sure on some level I'm influenced by them. Some level of subjectivity can't be avoided in preparing a list like lubitsch has, but occasional statements like "Melies will most likely make the cut for most viewers, other films will not" seem out of place here. The other issue is which films get mentioned as highlights in big collections like the Treasures boxes. Obviously, the films mentioned are the ones lubitsch considers highlights, but others would surely have mentioned, say, Interior New York Subway or, um, Life of an American Fireman. 8-[

I would suggest considering:

1. Getting rid of the red highlights.
2. Making routine edits to the "master" list to add films that anyone participating in the list considers one not to be missed (similar to the concept of the swapsie).
3. In the case of films featured in box sets, perhaps not mentioning any of the highlights. I mean, we all know that the Treasures boxes are essential viewing for this list. Something like Land Beyond the Sunset should be judged on its own merits, not as the crown jewel of Treasures 1.

I understand lubitsch's concern that people might submit short lists with only more popular films on them, but I think the way to combat that is just to require that everyone's list be at least a certain length (maybe 30?). Actually, it's a little soon to say, but I think I personally shouldn't have a problem filling out a top 50.

[TMDaines]

Has there been any thought given to perhaps doing some themed lists? Say a list of films in a specific language or from a specific country, or one based solely on a specific director's work? I've subconsciously been eating up all the Lang I can find recently and it'd be interesting to get a consensus on what people feel his best are in order.

[Tommaso]

I think such lists should best go into the individual director threads in the Filmmakers section of this forum. There was something like this for Hitchcock, for instance, though people just posted their own private lists there and no master-list was assembled.

[zedz]

I hadn't looked at that initial post for a long time (was the colour coding always there?) and agree with Gregory. Surely this exercise is not about reinforcing the canon (or a canon), and the way that post is phrased (particularly the opening "don't bother posting if you don't generally agree with me" line) is problematic, to say the least.

Personally, I have a big issue with the presumed bias against short subjects, actualities etc. in favour of 'important' feature films. This had emerged in the subsequent discussion and I'm frankly alarmed to see it complacently installed in the opening thread. If there's one thing the Lists Project has established beyond any reasonable doubt, it's that there is already a massive bias in favour of feature-length narrative filmmaking. It certainly doesn't need any further help! And this period is arguably the one in which other modes of filmmaking have a more natural prominence.