The Lists Project

[zedz]

Before anybody else has a conniption, I'm not proposing voting for The Night of the Hunter as a musical, and I'll probably only do so myself if doing so can be guaranteed to irritate people (maybe that's why I'm getting it out of my system now), but I'm curious as to how one would go about finding a workable definition of the genre that would exclude it and not exclude a whole lot of other 'obvious' musicals, unless the last part of the definition is "and isn't Night of the Hunter."

Other interesting marginal cases: O Lucky Man!, with its Brechtian musical interludes from musicians who do end up being characters in the narrative - eventually (compare with Cabaret, maybe); Une chambre en ville, which is wholly sung but, as I recall, doesn't resolve into 'songs' (compare with Les parapluies de Cherbourg, which does).

Obviously, these distinctions are only of interest to the taxonomists among us.

[Yojimbo]

One benefit of this thread is that I now know what 'conniption' means.
Not that I had given the matter much serious thought, previously, of course!

[domino harvey]

In America we have a concept called "the spirit of the law." Embrace the spirit of the genre, not technicalities that allow you to backdoor in a bunch of ridiculous choices. I mean, come on

[Yojimbo]

In America we have a concept called "the spirit of the law." Embrace the spirit of the genre, not technicalities that allow you to backdoor in a bunch of ridiculous choices. I mean, come on

Yeah, if all else fails I've always got that budget box-set '50 Musicals' to fall back on!

[zedz]

In America we have a concept called "the spirit of the law." Embrace the spirit of the genre, not technicalities that allow you to backdoor in a bunch of ridiculous choices. I mean, come on

If you just want to make a list, go ahead and make a list. I don't see the mortal peril about a discussion of taxonomy with regard to genre. I mean, the very concept of genre is all about taxonomy. I don't think you understand that this discussion is not about the mechanics of what people want to vote for.

Oh, and you're not seriously suggesting that "the spirit of the law" is an unproblematic, unambiguous legal or semantic concept, are you?

[domino harvey]

I don't think I care much for the implication that being frustrated by this line of thinking means I should either "Get with it, man" or just post a list and be done with contributing. However, to clarify, the rule for the Genre Project will always be "Vote for it," regardless of my personal gripes. If enough people really think Night of the Hunter is a musical, well, okay, but I'm pretty sure that's one of the signs of the Apocalypse

[mfunk9786]

I propose a "Zedz's Stupid Discussion of Taxonomy with Regard to Genre" thread.

[Steven H]

I propose an Infighting and Navel-gazing thread titled "People Should Not Talk About Genre in the Genre Thread."

[Yojimbo]

I propose everybody just get their personal conniptions over and done with and move on!

[Zazou dans le Metro]

In America we have a concept called "the spirit of the law." Embrace the spirit of the genre, not technicalities that allow you to backdoor in a bunch of ridiculous choices.

Are these not the opening lines of a Randy Newman song? Does this post now qualify as a musical?
I think the next line goes Taxonomy Taxonoyou Taxoneverybody Boo Hoo Hoo. I could be mistaken though.

[Tom Hagen]

BUT: Although there's plenty of music in 40 Shades of Blue, none of it is performed by major or significant secondary characters, as I recall, so I wouldn't classify that as a musical.

Did you enjoy this film, zedz? One of my great barmy moments as an audience member was drifting in and out of concisousness due to sleep depravation (and complete boredom with the film) during a screening of this at the end of a very long week of Sundance.

[zedz]

BUT: Although there's plenty of music in 40 Shades of Blue, none of it is performed by major or significant secondary characters, as I recall, so I wouldn't classify that as a musical.

Did you enjoy this film, zedz? One of my great barmy moments as an audience member was drifting in and out of concisousness due to sleep depravation (and complete boredom with the film) during a screening of this at the end of a very long week of Sundance.

Yes, but primarily on the strength of Rip Torn and Dina Korzun's performances (and the background music). I think it might have made the first iteration of my 00s list.

And domino and mfunk: if you're not interested in a particular type of film discussion, why don't you just ignore it? Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you're not obliged to comment in every thread. This is particularly rich coming from you, domino, given how (rightfully) indignant you were at lubitsch's attempts to quash and limit discussion in the Early Cinema list thread.

[colinr0380]

The debate here appears to being boiling down to: Paint Your Wagon - western, musical or horror film? (Or can it be all three?)

[Yojimbo]

The debate here appears to being boiling down to: Paint Your Wagon - western, musical or horror film? (Or can it be all three?)

or even silent movie, given that most people prefer it with the sound off
(at least during Clint's embarassing attempts at singing)

[Yojimbo]

BUT: Although there's plenty of music in 40 Shades of Blue, none of it is performed by major or significant secondary characters, as I recall, so I wouldn't classify that as a musical.

Did you enjoy this film, zedz? One of my great barmy moments as an audience member was drifting in and out of concisousness due to sleep depravation (and complete boredom with the film) during a screening of this at the end of a very long week of Sundance.

Yes, but primarily on the strength of Rip Torn and Dina Korzun's performances (and the background music). I think it might have made the first iteration of my 00s list.

Agreed; I bought the DVD on the strength of my Dublin Film Festival viewing; While Dina Korzun garnered most of the acting plaudits, for me Rip Torn, and his character, was note perfect.
The 'pacing', such as it was, was often tortuous, and the bleak and downbeat colour scheme and lighting didn't help matters, but I think for the two lead performances and the accuracy of the characterisations it would get the nod from me
(as opposed to 'nod off', which, admittedly, it prompts on occasion)

[Matt]

Here is your chance to decide who will be coordinating and tabulating votes for the 1930s List (and perhaps beyond). Please read the statements below from your two candidates and PM me your vote by 11:59 PM CST Sunday, January 30. Only those members who have participated or seriously intend to participate in the Lists Project should vote. In the interest of fairness to the candidates and to a legitimate vote, please keep any discussion of this vote out of public threads until after the voting deadline. Please be assured that all votes will remain strictly in my confidence.

CANDIDATE STATEMENTS:

A day before I had finished my viewing guide for the 1930s I got a PM by swo17 where he suggested he wanted to take over the project citing that my "interests seem to primarily lie in the silent era", the viewing guide "would be increasingly more difficult to apply to future projects (both for you to prepare and for others to refer to)" and he wanted to put "an emphasis more on encouraging communal discussion".

I was quite surprised especially at this very late point, the first two aspects were wrong, the third one a bit vague and from further PM discussion I got the impression that it's mostly a matter of the personal style and tone of my posts which I therefore have to adress first.

Since the list master's job is actually one of complete powerlessness, essentially repeating the rules at the beginning and calculating a lot at the end, I participated a bit in the discussion with my usually strict tone frankly telling when I thought films bad and also with some ironically meant comments which however might be misunderstood without the proper smilies. I thought the abrasive, over the top style of telling people what they have to like were recognizable as obvious parodies of the desperate film fan who sees others disagreeing with him. If they were misunderstood I apologize and will refrain from them in further editions.

I can nevertheless hardly believe that I've done this list a great disservice. I introduced two elements, a massive viewing guide which each may feel free to ignore but it may be of help for planning the viewing and especially during the vote as a reference guide. Further I asked back for the top films in order to be able to create a second list which takes into account that some films got a far wider exposure than others. The resulting list had more participants than the previous polls as I can gather from their results, an IMHO far more interesting and stimulating result with many more films thrown into the discussion profiting from well informed members, a longer running time and an increased availability of films via DVD and internet. Except for the viewing guide my own contribution to this is obviously very small because it all is a matter of people investing a bit of their time to discuss and evaluate films. The only point where I can address any difference between swo and me is that I in fact think the voters should be limited to those who really have to say anything about the era in question, you have to earn the right to vote and it's indeed better to wait until the next round if you feel not entirely well versed in the era as some members in fact did. However I've never declined a vote which gaps in viewing experience the PMs may have yielded especially since these PM's allow me at least for the top films to take the limitations of all our viewing experience into account.

So it's pretty difficult for me to close this campaign speech with any strong messages because I think that's a job which leaves little room for self expression and my only interest in being the listmaster lies in confronting people with the vast amounts of available films hoping they search them out for the voting and in getting the second list. Since I'd be unable to do both in case swo wins the vote, I have to point out in all fairness that the list project loses too much of its interest for me to continue any participation in it. Please do not understand this as blackmail but I've a job and a doctor thesis on my hand and a bit of a life beyond that and I simply won't devote my energies to anything I don't belive in fully anymore. I was very pleased with the contributions and the lists in this new round and would like very much to provide the framework for the future decades as long as I'm competent enough to do them.

With all due respect to the tremendous amount of work that lubitsch has put forth in the last two lists projects, I feel like participation has been limited and discussion somewhat stifled by the environment that has been fostered there over the past year. A few people have been fairly vocal with their complaints, but I get the sense that there are several others who have remained silent and just stayed out of the lists projects, or contributed less than they would have otherwise, because they feel alienated, fear their opinions will be ridiculed, or just plain don't see that we're having any fun.

I can't promise that I would put anywhere near as much effort into moderating the lists projects as lubitsch has (i.e. the comprehensive viewing guides, which I personally found invaluable during the pre-1920s project) but I don't necessarily feel that the position of moderator/tabulator needs to be as involved as he has made it out to be. I have no personal agenda. I have no interest in debating the films that people choose to champion in the lists projects. I am volunteering to take on this thankless task because I perceive that there is a collective desire to return to a more inviting atmosphere where as many people as possible are inclined to participate, both in preparing lists and, more importantly, engaging in lively discussions. This has always been my favorite aspect of the lists projects, and is what has helped me the most to discover great films outside of the established canon.

lubitsch is certainly extremely knowledgeable about cinema, probably much more so than I am, but I feel that he is less open to the suggestions of others, and that he believes the list is better off with certain people not contributing. (I hope lubitsch won't mind me saying that he confirmed this last point to me in a PM.) In contrast, I say: the more, the merrier. Invite other forum members to participate. Invite your friends in real life. Anyone who is willing to dive in, explore uncharted territory, and share their experiences with everyone else. I would love it if we could get as much discussion going about the 1930s as we do for some of the more recent decades.

As a final note, I would just like to add that however this turns out, I sincerely hope that lubitsch continues to contribute in future lists projects, as I think we can all agree that he brings a unique and worthwhile perspective to the table. I know that I personally have found several new favorite films during the last two lists projects as a direct result of one of his recommendations.

[Matt]

With 21 members having voted, swo17 is your new Lists Project coordinator.

[domino harvey]

I hesitate to bring this up again, but we should really start entertaining serious arguments for the next genre list, as it's only a month away. Musicals and Horror have both been proposed, and any other genre suggestions are welcomed. I'd, rather selfishly, like to lobby for musicals, but once more I throw it on the mercy of the board. Well, what sayeth all?

EDIT: Actually, looking back a couple pages, it looks like there's already four votes for Musicals! Maybe we already did unofficially decide this?

[Steven H]

Musicals would be great. Personally, I'd like to see a science fiction films list, but that's probably not narrow enough of scope to compare to noir, musicals, or Westerns.

[domino harvey]

Well, that'd be five, so looks like musicals it is! I think sci-fi could work in the future, and I'd also love to see war films too. Still plenty of genres to tackle!

EDIT: Missed Matt's vote, so actually six-- we're well over now! Man, can't wait!

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

Happy enough with musicals as I'm a bit more comfortable there than with westerns but has Melodrama ever had a run out ?

[knives]

Yeah, I thought a long time ago we agreed Musicals for some breathing room and than maybe Horror. Either way this stuff is fun.

[Tommaso]

Yeah, musicals would be great. Although I'll already include lots of musicals in my 30s list.

[zedz]

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.

So the waiting list so far is Horror, Science Fiction and War? 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.

[matrixschmatrix]

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.