criterionforum.org

Michael wrote:Like King of Kong said, Killing and Love are small masterpieces, aren't they good enough to stand alone as separate films?

Yes, they are. Just like 'three colors', they stand alone very well as separate films, but are thermatically connected in a certain way. I am not sure what small masterpieces really mean. Because these movies are short?

kieslowski_67 wrote:

Michael wrote:Like King of Kong said, Killing and Love are small masterpieces, aren't they good enough to stand alone as separate films?

Yes, they are. Just like 'three colors', they stand alone very well as separate films, but are thermatically connected in a certain way. I am not sure what small masterpieces really mean. Because these movies are short?

The main problem I have is, how would one rank the Dekalog against the Short Films? The Dekalog, taken together, is a masterwork, yet so are Killing and Love. Are the two extended episodes necessarily better or worse than the Dekalog as a whole? I also consider them superior to their Dekalog incarnations (films 5 and 6) - I often watch them instead of the originals when I'm viewing the whole Dekalog.

So while they can stand alone as excellent movies in their own right, it's a tricky business when one considers them alongside the Dekalog in a "best of" list: should they contend with eachother at all?

To be fair, I guess Love is sufficiently different from its Dekalog version as it has a different ending and scenes that can change one's interpretation of the film, while Killing is essentially just an expanded version of Dekalog 5. Kickasola in his book on Kieslowski has some interesting things to say about how the two short films stack against their Dekalog counterparts. He seems to think both versions of the two films viable as separate stories, but I'm not too sure.

King of Kong wrote:The main problem I have is, how would one rank the Dekalog against the Short Films? The Dekalog, taken together, is a masterwork, yet so are Killing and Love. Are the two extended episodes necessarily better or worse than the Dekalog as a whole? I also consider them superior to their Dekalog incarnations (films 5 and 6) - I often watch them instead of the originals when I'm viewing the whole Dekalog.

So while they can stand alone as excellent movies in their own right, it's a tricky business when one considers them alongside the Dekalog in a "best of" list: should they contend with eachother at all?

To be fair, I guess Love is sufficiently different from its Dekalog version as it has a different ending and scenes that can change one's interpretation of the film, while Killing is essentially just an expanded version of Dekalog 5. Kickasola in his book on Kieslowski has some interesting things to say about how the two short films stack against their Dekalog counterparts. He seems to think both versions of the two films viable as separate stories, but I'm not too sure.

You absolutely nailed it. Personally, I think that the two short films, red, blue, and 'double life' are better films when compared to individual episode in the 'Dekalog'. However, taken as a whole, 'Dekalog' ranks among a short list of the best movies of all time. We can argue the whole day about the quality and quantity issue and in the end, probably nobody wins.

I see both short films as the extended version of the 'Dekalog' episode 5 and 6 respectively even if 'love' has a totally different ending. I feel that the two episodes in 'Dekalog' are a little bit compressed since Kieslowski wanted to finish the story in 55 minutes. The character development in two short films are richer. I am more moved by the ending in 'love', and feel that I can understand the character Jacek more after watching 'killing'.

And I also feel that lumping all three as a whole is not fair to other candidates, especially when we are talking about a list.

to bring back an old topic and question the rules of this whole thing, i think we should seriously reconsider the structure of including television in the list. i will wholeheartedly admit that i have a selfish reasoning behind this - i want to vote for Twin Peaks. i am sure i'm not alone in this. my question is, why can't we just use an entry towards a whole series, and make the rule that you have to vote for THE WHOLE SERIES. i don't think anybody is going to want to go back and vote for 'Leave it to Beaver', and television has become more prominent for the time periods we are getting in to now. anybody with me or have other suggestions?

Hmmm.. we can always have Twin Peaks: Fire With With Me.

mmiesner wrote:i don't think anybody is going to want to go back and vote for 'Leave it to Beaver', and television has become more prominent for the time periods we are getting in to now.

Well, we can't assume that. I'm sure a lot of people would have voted for things like The Twilight Zone if they had the option. Since they didn't, and since we don't really want to change the rules in the middle of the project: no episodic TV.

Maybe we'll have a TV version of this in the future.

A member requested me to extend the deadline for the '70s list. The new deadline is now September 25th. So far, I've received two lists - kieslowski_67 and lord_clyde.

You have two weeks from tomorrow to contribute your '70s list.

Up to now:

myself, kieslowski_67, lord_clyde, jorencain.

I may be the only person who cares, but can we agree to treat Fukasaku's The Yakuza Papers: Battles Without Honor and Humanity as one film? And the Godfather films as separate?

I agree, Matt.

The ones that were already submitted to me listed Battles Wihout Honor and Humanity as one film and also The Godfather I and II as separate films.

Final reminder: the deadline for the '70s list is one week from today.

Up to now:

myself, kieslowski_67, lord_clyde, jorencain, yoshimori

My inattention to IMDB cost The Colour of Pomegranates a prime spot on the 60s list, so this time I'm being more anal. Can we confirm that the IMDB date rule still applies, and thus that Gates of Heaven and Berlin Alexanderplatz must be left until the 80s?

I understand what you mean, zedz. I faced the same situation with Gates of Heaven (which in my mind, is among the most quintessential '70s films). To make it easier for everyone, lets stick to the rules (quoted from the first page):


We're going to have top 50s. You are welcome to pass on a decade you don't feel like you've seen enough to try... Hopefully not everybody will leave it until the last minute. Here are the rules:

1. 50 films, ranked from 1 to 50, no ties. The list must go to 50. The film ranked #1 will get 50 points, #2 will get 49, down to #50 which get 1 point.

2. To make the final list, a film must be mentioned on two different lists.

3. For "controversial" years (made at the end or beginning of a decade) please use IMDb.

4. Serials will be counted as one film. Films like Ivan the Terrible and Die Niebelungen will be considered one film. Trilogies such as the Apu Trilogy, the Godfather trilogy, and the Three Colors trilogy will be counted as three different films, and must be separated as such.

5. Short films are allowed.

Sorry, being a bit lazy here, where do I send my list?

Cheers

Send your list to me.

Michael wrote:4. Serials will be counted as one film. Films like Ivan the Terrible and Die Niebelungen will be considered one film. Trilogies such as the Apu Trilogy, the Godfather trilogy, and the Three Colors trilogy will be counted as three different films, and must be separated as such.

Note that this rule has been bent slightly in respect to the Battles Without Honour and Humanity series, which is being considered as one film (though it's not a serial).

This won't really matter unless it makes somebody else's list, but I've lumped together the Bill Douglas Trilogy, none of which are feature length, if I recall correctly, since I can only think of them as a single entity. On the other hand, I've isolated Children, the first part of the Terence Davies Trilogy, because it straddles the decade barrier. So much for consistency! Please advise if either of these decisions is unacceptable.

We should also note for those that haven't been paying attention that TV movies and mini-series are eligible, as are music videos.

Note that this rule has been bent slightly in respect to the Battles Without Honour and Humanity series, which is being considered as one film (though it's not a serial).

IMDb treats Battles Without Honor and Humanity as an individual film so we will go by that.

zedz wrote:This won't really matter unless it makes somebody else's list, but I've lumped together the Bill Douglas Trilogy, none of which are feature length, if I recall correctly, since I can only think of them as a single entity. On the other hand, I've isolated Children, the first part of the Terence Davies Trilogy, because it straddles the decade barrier. So much for consistency! Please advise if either of these decisions is unacceptable.

I'm not familiar with the Bill Douglas Trilogy and the Terence Davies Trilogy however if the trilogy consists of three separate films (or titles) then I think we should treat each film separately. Let me know if I'm mistaken.

zedz wrote:We should also note for those that haven't been paying attention that TV movies and mini-series are eligible, as are music videos.

Many thanks for reminding us of this new rule.

Michael wrote:

Note that this rule has been bent slightly in respect to the Battles Without Honour and Humanity series, which is being considered as one film (though it's not a serial).

IMDb treats Battles Without Honor and Humanity as an individual film so we will go by that.

IMDB treats BwHaH and each of its sequels as individual films, quite properly. so our ruling is an aberration.

(And I'm going to hoard my Bill Douglases!)

Up to now:

myself, kieslowski_67, lord_clyde, jorencain, yoshimori, kambei, Dylan, Annie Mall, flambeur, Langlois68, zedz, clutch44

Two more days.

Do we count Jan Troell's The Emigrants and The New Land as one film or two? I tend to think of them as one, probably more tightly coupled than the Battles... films in fact, but I've also gotten the impression that many people outside Sweden only saw the former.

zedz wrote:My inattention to IMDB cost The Colour of Pomegranates a prime spot on the 60s list

I don't think you were being inattentive. Around the time we submitted our '60s lists, I wrote down the year-according-to-IMDB for several '70s films and they definitely called Color of Pomegranates a 1970 film then. So it wasn't eligible then for the '60s list, and now it's not eligible for the '70s list. It's sabotage!

ola t wrote:Do we count Jan Troell's The Emigrants and The New Land as one film or two? I tend to think of them as one, probably more tightly coupled than the Battles... films in fact, but I've also gotten the impression that many people outside Sweden only saw the former.

I myself only included The Emigrants on my list as I haven't yet seen The New Land. But I agree that they are two parts of the same film, much like Kill Bill or Lord of the Rings. But let's give Michael the final word on this.

ola t wrote:Do we count Jan Troell's The Emigrants and The New Land as one film or two? I tend to think of them as one, probably more tightly coupled than the Battles... films in fact, but I've also gotten the impression that many people outside Sweden only saw the former.

zedz wrote:My inattention to IMDB cost The Colour of Pomegranates a prime spot on the 60s list

I don't think you were being inattentive. Around the time we submitted our '60s lists, I wrote down the year-according-to-IMDB for several '70s films and they definitely called Color of Pomegranates a 1970 film then. So it wasn't eligible then for the '60s list, and now it's not eligible for the '70s list. It's sabotage!

If your considering Godfather I & II as separate titles, I think the same relationship holds true for The Emigrants & The New Land.

I've finally gotten hold of a VHS of The New Land and will be watching this weekend.

Cheers

I'll have a list for you on Saturday, Michael. Couple things I wanna try to revisit tomorrow....

flambeur wrote:If your considering Godfather I & II as separate titles, I think the same relationship holds true for The Emigrants & The New Land.

Sweden is releasing both films as a single set which in my way of seeing means that they belong together much like the Kill Bill ones.

flambeur wrote:If your considering Godfather I & II as separate titles, I think the same relationship holds true for The Emigrants & The New Land.

Just for the sake of arguing a tiny bit, the Godfather films weren't shot simultaneously as a single production entity, whereas The Emigrants and The New Land were. But whatever Michael decides, I'll be happy.