The Lists Project

[antnield]

Documentary was posited at some point in this thread too, I think.

[domino harvey]

And comedies/romantic comedies/romances

Yay, musicals! I actually did a straw poll and couldn't get to fifty that I loved enough to list, so this should be an exciting personal research project.

I'm also very excited, but in the exact opposite boat. This is the first list project where I've already seen a significant chunk of what's out there, and I've been dying, dyin' I tells ya, to talk nonstop about musicals on this board ever since I went on a total musical bender a few years back. A well-done musical really is about as great a realization of the possibilities of cinema as exists! Cannot wait to finally have an excuse to write up and lobby for a whole mess of my favorites (and misses) and hear what others think. And since one thing I noticed very quickly, as with all other genres, was that often times the overlooked and maligned "failures" are the real classics, hopefully even the seasoned vets will have some great discoveries out there (and man, for the newcomers to the genre, get ready!)

[knives]

Yay, musicals! I actually did a straw poll and couldn't get to fifty that I loved enough to list, so this should be an exciting personal research project.

I probably couldn't give even ten traditional musicals I like enough for a list so I'm going to go by as broad a definition as possible to include the likes of The Wall, Sing a Song of Sex, and the Fischinger's amongst other similar things.

I would like to see Animation at some point, though I guess that stretches the line between medium and genre. At least it's a relatively easy-to-define one.

Yes, we have to if just so I can shower everyone with me insane love of Kihachiro Kawamoto.

[zedz]

Put me down as an enthusiastic YES! for Documentaries and Animation - though if I simply collate my decades lists I've probably already got those sorted.

Also, we did this once during the lists project, but it probably fits better in this category even though it's not a genre: shorts (which we defined as any film under 45 minutes).

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

Melodrama is an interesting suggestion, but I have no idea how you'd keep that well-enough defined that it doesn't swallow up 50% of cinema.

Yes you're right. It's an interesting one to wrestle with but difficult to pin down and get to submit. A thumbnail definition might be conflict between those in love or of the same blood (or my favourite...both) where the central tragedy is heightened to a non naturalistic degree.
But then that could take in at least David Lean, Ozu, Malick, Kaurismaki as well as the usual suspects Sirk, Ophuls Fassbinder et al. I suppose it's one of those intuitive things that we know it when we see it. Like westerns are about men in big hats on horses who stare into campfires maybe melodramas are just 'weepies'.
Musicals are of course easy, that's Dancer in the Dark and On Connait la Chanson. Right?

[Murdoch]

It's a shame we can't vote for TV episodes since then I'd be able to lock "Once More With Feeling" into my number one (it's soundtrack is even available retail!). Oh well, out goes one Whedon, in goes another.

[swo17]

This one might have to wait in line a few years (at which point I may have more time to participate in a genre list) but what about crime, i.e. heist films, gangster/mafia/yakuza films, prison/prison escape films, etc.? This might be my favorite genre actually.

[Murdoch]

My list for that would just be loaded with noirs tho

[swo17]

OK, but unlike the noir list, you could probably justify including Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog on it.

[Murdoch]

COOL!

[Mr Sausage]

Something just occurred to me. At some point we will get to the horror list (my hope is after musicals), but where the other genres we've done have been limited in terms of the period of popularity and the countries involved, horror has been popular in a lot of countries for most of cinema's history. As a viewing assignment, it's ridiculously hefty, and will be difficult to turn into a final list.

So, I propose that we break horror into manageable sections. For example: Horror from the 20's-40's, then from the 50's-70's, and then 80's-now. This way, no one will be overwhelmed by the mass of suggestions, required viewings, forgotten jewels, and we'll have a better chance of agreement among lists.

[knives]

I was thinking (and suggested at the start of the genres project I believe) that in keeping with the concept of the list we'd split it into multiple little genres (we have already done this with crime fiction by having a noir list). The only problem I could foresee with that is overlap between any sub groups we come up with.

[matrixschmatrix]

It doesn't seem like overlap would be a huge problem- I mean, there was a noir list and there will eventually be 40s list, and that's going to involve some pretty significant overlapping. But I imagine that a lot of narrower subgenres would involve even more argument about definitions than the ones that we've had so far, and I doubt anyone wants that.

[Cold Bishop]

I disagree... if the genre is too hefty, we can extend the deadline past the usual time, but I don't think the benefit of dividing the lists is really that great. At most, keeping it from turning it into a funhouse mirror of the decades list, I could see a division point at 1960 (Psycho), but I have my reservations even about that. In fact, I can see some harm. I think it'll have a tendency to ghettoize certain periods: fans of classic horror on here might tune out when we get to the post 70s era of perceived blood and sleaze; certain people who were raised on newer horror films might be a little intimidated about contributing to a strictly classics list. I actually think durability of the genre across different era and styles and countries will create an interesting cross-pollination of thought and opinion lacking in the more era specific lists.

I also see a greater fatigue setting in when making several lists than would happen in simply expanding the viewing-and-voting period.

I'm not against breaking a genre down to sub-genres if its something too broad and unwieldy as a genre, and if the sub-genre is prosperous enough on its own (I still don't how something like a "Romance" project would work... most films have some sort of romance), but I think horror is pretty well defined.

[knives]

I think horror is pretty well defined.

Honestly sometimes I can't tell and I absolutely love the genre. Like what would make The Invisible Man a horror movie? Because it has a monster? In that case it better fits fantasy or sci-fi. The film definitely isn't trying to be scary or horrific being more along the lines of a comedy. There's several other films especially from the classic era where horror resignation seem to be just because. Of course we've ran into this with both of the lists we've worked on and probably will on every one after.

[Cold Bishop]

Well, there's always going to be overlap and controversy about the boundaries of Horror, Sci-Fi, Fantasy and just plain old thrillers... none of which I can imagine being solved by sub-genre lists or era-specific lists.

[swo17]

I know this is an unanswerable question, but how many horror films are there? More to the point, how many horror films are people interested in watching/rewatching/considering from memory in order to make their own lists? If it's in the neighborhood of, say, 300, that might only be enough to support one list. If it's closer to double that, then it should maybe be two projects. And so on. If you're considering less than that in a single project, it seems like there are going to be a lot of films on a top 50 that you're only lukewarm about.

[domino harvey]

I can't imagine more than one list per genre-- anything more is just pedantic to my eyes. As for what's what, I could have sworn we settled this with the "Vote For It" approach?

Swo, I can legitimately think of well over 400 Hollywood films that could make the cut for the 50s list, and that's only from America, that I've already seen. Unless you're advocating even more hyperspecific boundaries across the board, don't ignite a non-universal fire! (But don't even if you are, haha)

[Murdoch]

Limiting it to one list will certainly allow for a great variety of lists, dividing horror up into several lists would just take up too much time that could be spent on other genres. Interest in the genre would likely taper off except for the die-hards if we spend too long on it, I mean three lists would probably take 2 years!

[swo17]

Swo, I can legitimately think of well over 400 Hollywood films that could make the cut for the 50s list, and that's only from America, that I've already seen. Unless you're advocating even more hyperspecific boundaries across the board, don't ignite a non-universal fire! (But don't even if you are, haha)

All I was trying to suggest is that, during the six month timeframe of each decade project, I usually have time to fit in about 300 viewings (or maybe as many as 500 if I neglect all other facets of life). If I end up with 300-500 films seen from each decade, this generally puts me in a good position to make a top 50 where I genuinely love everything on there because there's no room for anything else, and even many films I love or would have always assumed would make such a list fail to make the cut. This is precisely the way I like it though. If there are really enough horror films out there that people want to devote a year to watching them, and that it would be criminal for any given person to honor any less than 100 of them, then it could make sense to split it into maybe two projects (if you can think of sexy subgenre names) but I'm guessing that's not the case.

That being said, I do think it would be great if at some point the forum membership could tackle the genre of Werewolves.

[matrixschmatrix]

Would that include yanaglachi and waarwilfs? What about weretigers, or weresharks? Would the Island of Dr Moreau fit? So many questions...

[domino harvey]

Already voting for Wolfen in the Crime list

[Mr Sausage]

Right, we'll keep horror to one project, then.

My thinking on splitting up horror is that there are so many essential pockets of it that should be watched comprehensibly that people might feel overwhelmed. Just between the dense Universal period, the British Horror boom of the late fifties to mid-seventies, the (immense) Italian horror scene, the rise of American exploitation in the sixties and seventies, the slasher craze of the eighties, it's a hefty load, and not even near the end of it. I suspect that will limit participation and reduce the amount of cross-over between individual lists.

That said, the objections raised are good ones, so we'll keep the genre project as is and be generous about extending time limits if people are having trouble watching what they need.

[domino harvey]

All of the genre lists thus far have been extended a bit, and I have no problem giving a larger timeframe at the outset for any genre that might require such according to the participants

[matrixschmatrix]

I assume this has been established, but I haven't seen it- is the plan to continue with one decade list and one genre list running simultaneously until they run out, or are there going to be more or fewer things going on at a time at some point?