Pre 1920s List Discussion/Suggestions (List Project Vol. 3)

[knives]

I say we keep things as they are. A film must get at least two votes to be mentioned in either the main list or the darlings. If I'm the only one voting for Hesanut, than I can complain on why you're all jerks for not voting for it in the Darlings thread. There is zero reasons to change the rules and if you feel so conflicted about this hand over the reigns to someone more callous.
As for Schrek, while I would love for his list to count, you snooze, you lose. I say give him until the end of the day. Otherwise tally up.

[reno dakota]

I say we keep things as they are. A film must get at least two votes to be mentioned in either the main list or the darlings.

We have never prohibited discussion of one-vote wonders (i.e., 'orphans') in the darlings thread and I don't see any reason to begin doing so now.

[zedz]

I'm not suggesting that we ever allowed one-vote wonders onto the aggregate list because, as domino explained, this has always been explicitly against the rules. What I'm talking about here are the 'orphans' that appear in the also-rans and get discussed in the darlings thread.

I reckon we should retain the existing rules as well. I'm not going to lose any sleep over Love and Journalism, as I'm a sad panda from way back. These lists are only ever a snapshot of the consensus views of a handful of fanatics, and availability is a big contributing factor to that consensus. Also, as I keep futilely insisting, the final list is much less interesting and important than all the discussion that it generates, including what great films have been left off for whatever reason.

It's not a factor in this monkish list, or in the all-comers late ones, but one reason for the rule, I've always assumed, is to discourage artificial pumping of specific films that could skew the final tally (e.g. somebody placing an obscure film at number one rather than number thirty on their personal list simply to give it a chance of making the final list). We do occasionally get a very strange list from an unknown hand that could have skewed the result. And, I should note, most of us are just assuming that Love and Journalism and Sons of Ingmar are great films that are hard to see. If they were more readily available they might be generally dismissed, and Lubitsch and me disdained as lone crazies. That's all part of the fun.

[reno dakota]

Also, as I keep futilely insisting, the final list is much less interesting and important than all the discussion that it generates, including what great films have been left off for whatever reason.

I agree. Seeing a passionate defense of an orphan in the darlings thread is more likely to encourage me to seek it out than seeing the same film listed at, say, #92 on the aggregate list.

[knives]

I say we keep things as they are. A film must get at least two votes to be mentioned in either the main list or the darlings.

We have never prohibited discussion of one-vote wonders (i.e., 'orphans') in the darlings thread and I don't see any reason to begin doing so now.

My mistake, I meant to say the also-rans. I mention later that I can fight for Hesanut in the darlings thread.

[Gregory]

Oops, I obviously misunderstood what reno dakota was talking about earlier.
I vote for "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

[Dr Amicus]

Add me in for keeping the status quo. If we end up with a list of less than 100 films, than that's what happens.

I can see the attraction of a couple of extra weeks to catch up with say the provisional top 20 - but can't help feeling that goes against the spirit of the enterprise. Zedz has noted in the Diamonds of the Night discussion how releases such as that help us redefine the canon - my fear is a move such as this only reinforces a certain canon on this forum. I know there are films I haven't seen which would have made my list, but that is always going to be the case. If I had been rigorously following the 'canon' - even following all of Lubitsch's (admittedly extremely helpful) suggestions - I might not have chanced upon the wondrous Prinsengracht which made my number 5 slot.

Still - it's good that such issues are raised occasionally. If nothing else, it makes us question the rules imposed on the project to see if they're still valid.

[nsps]

I was recruited for this list, so I'm not familiar with the past process. Many aspects of this era are hard to find info on, so I definitely see the appeal of of checking everybody's lists for things you missed. Dr. Amicus makes a good point (or reiterates Zedz's) regarding the possibility of a group-think echo-chamber canon. At the same time, I think it's important to recognize the gaps in our own viewing, even if we only do so in expectation of a visit back to this era when the project loops around. If the goal of the list is to take stock of both what people admired and what they chose to watch, then we can wait until we loop back around to refine our lists.

[lubitsch]

I have all 13 lists tabulated, however I need to ask all of you questions about the exact identification and source of some short films via PM which I will do now. I'll also ask if you want to keep the "minimum 2 voters" rule (which seems to be the case) and if we give a slight extension for the viewers who couldn't see the most important films. I'll ask each and every one if he has seen all the biggies which appeared on 7 or more lists and have a high average rating, but have been left out of the individual list.
Schreck indeed had other matters on his mind, but promised to deliver a list today and I definitively want to have him on board because he's undoubtedly one of the most knowledgeable silent viewers here.

[swo17]

Re: making sure everyone has seen the top 20--I'm a bit leery of measures that might serve to just reinforce the canon. (It's not just films in the provisional top 20 that everyone should see!) That being said, I suppose I don't see the harm in it--those films were going to be in the top 20 anyway, and this just allows for a bit more refinement in the placement of films at the very top.

In the meantime, as long as there's an extension in place, here's an important film everyone should make sure they've seen:

Homunculus

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

[Gregory]

Re: making sure everyone has seen the top 20--I'm a bit leery of measures that might serve to just reinforce the canon. (It's not just films in the provisional top 20 that everyone should see!) That being said, I suppose I don't see the harm in it--those films were going to be in the top 20 anyway, and this just allows for a bit more refinement in the placement of films at the very top.

I agree with the first part of what you've said, and with what Dr Amicus said above. If some people add some of the "required viewing" films to their lists, then it gives fewer points to "non-required viewing" films that did not have that extra advantage of everyone seeing them, making them place lower. Maybe some of those "non-required viewing" films would have replaced more popular choices on some lists if everyone had seen them. It's a zero-sum game, and I think all films should be treated equally.

[swo17]

Thinking through this a bit more, if people are watching some of the top 20 films under the presumption that these are THE top 20 films, are you really sure you don't want to include them on your list, and this causes some "lower" films to get kicked off the bottom, this seems like plain old ugly canon reinforcement.

What might work though (but is probably needlessly complicated and might not get enough participation to be worth it anyway) is if the provisional top 20 were listed here in the thread and then everyone submitted a second list ranking only these 20 films in order of preference in order to determine final placement for the top 20 films in the combined list. With the individual top 50 lists, there is no way to distinguish between a film that just barely doesn't make a list and one that someone actively loathes. Second-round top 20 lists would be a way to factor this in to some extent.

Then again, if it isn't broke...

[nsps]

That could work, or it could be needlessly complicated—hard to tell. My list clearly favored the shorts of the period over the features, so I wouldn't be averse to ranking features and other major works that didn't make my personal list. Since this is my first time participating, I'll let you all sort it out and tell me what to do.

[Sloper]

I'm a little surprised that anyone would watch enough films to compile a list like this and not get around to Chaplin.

I know, I know, but I have seen quite a few of his short films in the past and they just never quite did anything for me. Unknown Chaplin was a real eye-opener, though, and made me want to give him another chance. I'm sure I will one of these days.

That said, he did pretty well in this forum's 'Silent Era' lists from 2004 and 2006. Here are the pre-1920s films from those lists, in rank order and with the number of points scored for the 2006 list. Not sure how interesting/revealing this is, but hey it's mildly diverting while we await the results for 2010...


2004
11. Intolerance
20. Broken Blossoms
21. A Trip to the Moon
28. The Birth of a Nation
35. Les Vampires
43. The Great Train Robbery
45. Regeneration
51. Cabiria
52. The Waterer Watered
59. A Corner in Wheat
66. Easy Street
69. The Workers Leaving the Factory
70. The Cheat
72. A Dog’s Life
81. Arrival of the Mail Train
96. The Immigrant
98. Ingeborg Holm


2006
12. Intolerance (280)
19. Les Vampires (211)
26. Broken Blossoms (167)
33. Cabiria (131)
36. The Birth of a Nation (125)
39. Fantomas (122)
43. A Trip to the Moon (120)
52. The Cameraman’s Revenge (93)
55. After Death (91)
64. A Corner in Wheat (76)
78. The Impossible Voyage (60)
(tie) The Mysterious X (60)
83. A Dog’s Life (53)
89. Easy Street (50)
(tie) The Great Train Robbery (50)
94. The Outlaw and His Wife (45)
95. The Musketeers of Pig Alley (44)
100. Judex (38)
(tie) Regeneration (38)

[Tommaso]

Thanks, Sloper. I have the feeling that the 2010 list will look completely different, with so many more films now being available on dvd and elsewhere. The two earlier lists really only feature the most obvious candidates.

Agreed on Chaplin. Not one of his films made it onto my list...

[Yojimbo]

I'm a little surprised that anyone would watch enough films to compile a list like this and not get around to Chaplin.

I know, I know, but I have seen quite a few of his short films in the past and they just never quite did anything for me. Unknown Chaplin was a real eye-opener, though, and made me want to give him another chance. I'm sure I will one of these days.

That said, he did pretty well in this forum's 'Silent Era' lists from 2004 and 2006. Here are the pre-1920s films from those lists, in rank order and with the number of points scored for the 2006 list. Not sure how interesting/revealing this is, but hey it's mildly diverting while we await the results for 2010...


2004
11. Intolerance
20. Broken Blossoms
21. A Trip to the Moon
28. The Birth of a Nation
35. Les Vampires
43. The Great Train Robbery
45. Regeneration
51. Cabiria
52. The Waterer Watered
59. A Corner in Wheat
66. Easy Street
69. The Workers Leaving the Factory
70. The Cheat
72. A Dog’s Life
81. Arrival of the Mail Train
96. The Immigrant
98. Ingeborg Holm


2006
12. Intolerance (280)
19. Les Vampires (211)
26. Broken Blossoms (167)
33. Cabiria (131)
36. The Birth of a Nation (125)
39. Fantomas (122)
43. A Trip to the Moon (120)
52. The Cameraman’s Revenge (93)
55. After Death (91)
64. A Corner in Wheat (76)
78. The Impossible Voyage (60)
(tie) The Mysterious X (60)
83. A Dog’s Life (53)
89. Easy Street (50)
(tie) The Great Train Robbery (50)
94. The Outlaw and His Wife (45)
95. The Musketeers of Pig Alley (44)
100. Judex (38)
(tie) Regeneration (38)

Have you seen 'The Immigrant', sloper?
This was one of a number of his shorts I saw here to orchestral accompaniment and it was the one, above all others, which revived my love for his shorts.
And I much prefer Feuillade's 'Fantomas' to his 'Vampires', though I haven't watched his 'Judex', yet

[Vampyr]

here's an important film everyone should make sure they've seen:

Homunculus

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Hi, I don't mean to intrude upon your thread, but these links don't seem to work for me. I have always wanted to see HOMUNCULUS, but have not been able to track down a copy. Is it available on DVD?

Thanks in advance.

[swo17]

It's not available on DVD. Are you able to download the files from each link? (If not, I don't know what to tell you.) You need to download the rar files from all three links, then extract the contents with WinRAR. If you have any more specific questions about WinRAR, feel free to send me a PM.

[Vampyr]

Thanks, SWO17! I have sent a PM.

[zedz]

Thinking through this a bit more, if people are watching some of the top 20 films under the presumption that these are THE top 20 films, are you really sure you don't want to include them on your list, and this causes some "lower" films to get kicked off the bottom, this seems like plain old ugly canon reinforcement.

Bingo! I'm also very uncomfortable with the proposal to wait until people have seen "all the films", since I think even having a conception of something called "all the films" - however provisional that might be - is undesirable, for this or any era. For a list that started out hoping to challenge the canon, it looks like we're trying to do everything in our measly power to reinforce it.

What might work though (but is probably needlessly complicated and might not get enough participation to be worth it anyway) is if the provisional top 20 were listed here in the thread and then everyone submitted a second list ranking only these 20 films in order of preference in order to determine final placement for the top 20 films in the combined list. With the individual top 50 lists, there is no way to distinguish between a film that just barely doesn't make a list and one that someone actively loathes. Second-round top 20 lists would be a way to factor this in to some extent.

Then again, if it isn't broke...

The problem I have with this suggestion is that it presupposes that the question of whether a particular film came in at number seven or number eleven is actually important. We've never agonised over individual rankings to such an extent before.

[domino harvey]

I don't know why you guys are surprised it went down like this after what happened in the thread to begin with. Make him do it the right way or have someone else step up to the plate to tabulate. It's only 13 lists, boo-hoo it can't be that hard to tally

[denti alligator]

I feel really bad about not contributing, but I've been really busy writing a book, and just haven't had the time to view so many of the films I wanted to for this.

I'll see if I can make the 20s list. So, where's the final tally?

[lubitsch]

I'll see if I can make the 20s list. So, where's the final tally?

I'm waiting for Schreck's list and three answers from Dr. Amicus, Gregory and nsps for my questions.

[Sloper]

Have you seen 'The Immigrant', sloper? This was one of a number of his shorts I saw here to orchestral accompaniment and it was the one, above all others, which revived my love for his shorts.

I had seen this a while ago, and just re-watched it (on YouTube I'm afraid...). Lots of great jokes, some of which made me laugh out loud, but what can I say - I just don't find that little tramp endearing or amusing in the way I do Lloyd's bespectacled berk, or Keaton's stonefaced disaster area. However, a couple of years ago I did see Carl Davis conduct his scores to three Chaplin films - Behind the Screen, Easy Street and The Adventurer - and that was a lot of fun. Seeing these things live, with a big audience, really makes a difference, perhaps especially for someone like Chaplin who engages so much, perhaps too much, with his audience. The best time I've ever had in a cinema was when I saw Davis and the CBSO accompany One Week and The General in a packed-out Symphony Hall (here in Birmingham), for an audience who laughed in all the right places and none of the wrong ones. I know this sounds arrogant, but I felt really proud of Buster Keaton. 80 years on, he can still fill an opera house, and then make it laugh for 90 minutes straight. And I'm sure the same is true of Chaplin.

[Gregory]

I wrote up something brief on Chaplin but I'm not sure whether to post it here or wait for darling-defense time. By the way, I hope I didn't sound at all rude or judgmental about people having missed Chaplin's shorts for the list. I'm sure I missed a few great things, myself. And for anyone who's already seen the Chaplins and didn't much like them, I can understand they might be a low priority for re-watching.

Right now, I'm starting Homunculus and I like what I see. Maybe if Schreck, Amicus, and/or nsps stall lubitsch just a little more, I can finish watching this and put in a vote for it under the wire.