Here's the first of CT's two annual movie lists.
What did we miss?
What did we get right?
Remember, some of the voters participate here on this board.
And brace yourselves for the Critics' Choice list, which serves a different purpose, and is judged by different standards. It's coming next week.
Number 10 is an interesting choice. I just tried to Google and find an article, to no avail, that I read at the gym a few weeks ago, while paging through an issue of Entertainmet Weekly. The piece quoted several actors and Hollywood bigwigs as to their favorite films of the year. I was pleasantly surprised to read that Freedom Writers was the choice of ... wait for it ...
Tommy Lee Jones
Tommy Lee Jones
I'm surprised _Hot Fuzz_ didn't get a mention.
Seriously, I'm too torn between some of the choices. I know I will not be able to overcome my skepticism for _Lars_, as that film has divided critics, and some have placed it in their Worst List. I initially thought _Into the Wild_ had potential, but Barb N's comments and knowing the ending doesn't convince me that it belongs there (she also dissed _Diving Bell_, and, well, _Bella_). I kinda thought _The Great Debaters_ had a shot of being recognized in there somewhere, but perhaps _Freedom Writers_ took its slot. And I'm kinda happy _Hairspray_ was roundly ignored, even tho it had themes that some would consider "redemptory", whereas I saw propaganda.
Of the films I've seen this year (which, admittedly, wasn't that many), I'm glad _Ratatouille_ made it--this film is good because it expects its audience to not settle for just whatever Hollywood dishes out, and to develop a taste for quality art.
Seriously, I'm too torn between some of the choices. I know I will not be able to overcome my skepticism for _Lars_, as that film has divided critics, and some have placed it in their Worst List. I initially thought _Into the Wild_ had potential, but Barb N's comments and knowing the ending doesn't convince me that it belongs there (she also dissed _Diving Bell_, and, well, _Bella_). I kinda thought _The Great Debaters_ had a shot of being recognized in there somewhere, but perhaps _Freedom Writers_ took its slot. And I'm kinda happy _Hairspray_ was roundly ignored, even tho it had themes that some would consider "redemptory", whereas I saw propaganda.
Of the films I've seen this year (which, admittedly, wasn't that many), I'm glad _Ratatouille_ made it--this film is good because it expects its audience to not settle for just whatever Hollywood dishes out, and to develop a taste for quality art.
The one that cries out as missing is After the Wedding. I might have also liked to have seen some mention of Waitress, but then I don't write for CT.
How did Painted Veil miss the top ten? Wow. That film is all about redemption.
And I understand how and why Into Great Silence is a huge favorite for many of CT's writers for 2007... But how is it redemptive? Is the idea that silence somehow redeems business and noise? If that's the case, the film itself doesn't tell that story -- because it's all silence. That's be like Painted Veil being a story of redemption -- even if you never knew about Kitty's (and Walter's) original betrayals. Redemption requires being lost as the starting point. You know... "Once I was blind, now I see!" IGS is all "I can see!" without any sense of how any of those men were "blind" in the first place.
And I understand how and why Into Great Silence is a huge favorite for many of CT's writers for 2007... But how is it redemptive? Is the idea that silence somehow redeems business and noise? If that's the case, the film itself doesn't tell that story -- because it's all silence. That's be like Painted Veil being a story of redemption -- even if you never knew about Kitty's (and Walter's) original betrayals. Redemption requires being lost as the starting point. You know... "Once I was blind, now I see!" IGS is all "I can see!" without any sense of how any of those men were "blind" in the first place.
QUOTE (Darrel Manson @ Jan 29 2008, 06:18 PM) 
The one that cries out as missing is After the Wedding. I might have also liked to have seen some mention of Waitress, but then I don't write for CT.
Given that After the Wedding placed on my top 10, I don't disagree. As for Waitress, I think the record is more mixed on that one, myself.
QUOTE (Greg Wright @ Jan 29 2008, 08:54 PM)
And I understand how and why Into Great Silence is a huge favorite for many of CT's writers for 2007... But how is it redemptive?
This is where the ambiguity of the category title comes into play. CT calls it "most redeeming" because we haven't thought of anything better to call it, but in my mind (and apparently other CT voters have converging opinions) the category more or less correlates with what my site ratings call "moral/spiritual value." It is an ill-defined category, and one very poor but functional definition might be "films that you might expect to see on Christianity Today's top 10 list precisely because it is Christianity Today and not the New York Times." It wouldn't be hard to offer a better qualitative formulation of the criteria (indeed, it would be hard to do worse), but if Into Great Silence wasn't at the top of the list, I'd say a pox on all their houses. In love.
Darrel Manson wrote:
: I might have also liked to have seen some mention of Waitress, but then I don't write for CT.
I'm afraid Waitress, which came out almost a year ago now, might have been eclipsed by the year's OTHER unwanted-pregnancy movies, including Most Redeeming finalists Juno and Bella (the latter of which has never come to Canada, so I still haven't seen it). That certainly would have given ME pause. (Indeed, it's something I'm still pondering as I work on my own Top Ten list.)
Greg Wright wrote:
: How did Painted Veil miss the top ten? Wow. That film is all about redemption.
There may have been some confusion as to whether it was a 2006 film (which is when it was released in most big-ish cities, including even Vancouver; we didn't get Children of Men or There Will Be Blood until the Januarys following their respective release dates) or a 2007 film. It wasn't on the shortlist of nominees, so it wasn't there for us to vote on. (And I know that I, for one, didn't include it on my pre-nomination list of recommended films; if I had known it was being counted as a 2007 film, I probably would have nominated it.)
Figuring out which films to include during awards season has been a tricky issue for CT Movies; in 2005, our very own Jeff listed The New World as his pick for the "One That Got Away" category, but then, the following year, it was counted as a 2006 film and ranked at #2 on the list. But Children of Men, which was released in only a handful of cities in 2006 and then went wide in January 2007, was #10 on the Most Redeeming list for 2006 and wasn't even considered for 2007. So there doesn't seem to be any consistent rule on this -- or, if there is, it's in a state of flux.
(Incidentally, note also how the Most Redeeming list for 2006 includes Tsotsi, Joyeux Noel and Sophie Scholl -- all of which were nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar of 2005! In that light, it's a little odd to see that The Lives of Others, a widely-acclaimed-for-its-redemptiveness 2006 Oscar winner that went into wide release in 2007, appears on NEITHER list -- and yes, I did suggest that film, but it didn't make the list of nominees, which suggests that almost no one else recommended it, which leads me to think that some people might have been confused about the year for which THAT film was eligible, too.)
: And I understand how and why Into Great Silence is a huge favorite for many of CT's writers for 2007... But how is it redemptive? Is the idea that silence somehow redeems business and noise? If that's the case, the film itself doesn't tell that story -- because it's all silence. That's be like Painted Veil being a story of redemption -- even if you never knew about Kitty's (and Walter's) original betrayals. Redemption requires being lost as the starting point. You know... "Once I was blind, now I see!" IGS is all "I can see!" without any sense of how any of those men were "blind" in the first place.
I think the point is that the AUDIENCE MEMBERS, rather than the characters in the film, have to pass through who knows how much business and noise (including the concession stand, I wonder?) before they can get to the silence of the film itself. (Just wondering, did anyone eat popcorn during this film, or notice anyone else who did? I know I felt a tad self-conscious when I munched ever-so-slowly on my popcorn during a screening of James Benning's 13 Lakes. NEVER have I been so conscious of the noise that one can make when plucking a few kernels from a tub of popcorn.)
Incidentally, while we're talking release dates, I cannot resist noting that Into Great Silence is a 2005 film, even if it did not play in North America outside of the festival circuit until 2007. (I saw it on my laptop via a DVD screener that I borrowed before the Vancouver film festival in 2006 -- and thus, I have never really "experienced" the film. There was too much business and noise in my home at that time, courtesy of my then-9-month-old twins.)
SDG wrote:
: It is an ill-defined category, and one very poor but functional definition might be "films that you might expect to see on Christianity Today's top 10 list precisely because it is Christianity Today and not the New York Times."
Yeah, considering the category was created largely because The Passion of the Christ failed to find a place AT ALL on our very first Critics' Choice list back in 2004. (Jeff has talked about this in at least two of his speeches that I've attended, so I don't think there's any secret about that now. For all I know, he might even talk about it in the book he was promoting at one of those speeches -- which just goes to show how lame I am for not having read all of it yet.)
: I might have also liked to have seen some mention of Waitress, but then I don't write for CT.
I'm afraid Waitress, which came out almost a year ago now, might have been eclipsed by the year's OTHER unwanted-pregnancy movies, including Most Redeeming finalists Juno and Bella (the latter of which has never come to Canada, so I still haven't seen it). That certainly would have given ME pause. (Indeed, it's something I'm still pondering as I work on my own Top Ten list.)
Greg Wright wrote:
: How did Painted Veil miss the top ten? Wow. That film is all about redemption.
There may have been some confusion as to whether it was a 2006 film (which is when it was released in most big-ish cities, including even Vancouver; we didn't get Children of Men or There Will Be Blood until the Januarys following their respective release dates) or a 2007 film. It wasn't on the shortlist of nominees, so it wasn't there for us to vote on. (And I know that I, for one, didn't include it on my pre-nomination list of recommended films; if I had known it was being counted as a 2007 film, I probably would have nominated it.)
Figuring out which films to include during awards season has been a tricky issue for CT Movies; in 2005, our very own Jeff listed The New World as his pick for the "One That Got Away" category, but then, the following year, it was counted as a 2006 film and ranked at #2 on the list. But Children of Men, which was released in only a handful of cities in 2006 and then went wide in January 2007, was #10 on the Most Redeeming list for 2006 and wasn't even considered for 2007. So there doesn't seem to be any consistent rule on this -- or, if there is, it's in a state of flux.
(Incidentally, note also how the Most Redeeming list for 2006 includes Tsotsi, Joyeux Noel and Sophie Scholl -- all of which were nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar of 2005! In that light, it's a little odd to see that The Lives of Others, a widely-acclaimed-for-its-redemptiveness 2006 Oscar winner that went into wide release in 2007, appears on NEITHER list -- and yes, I did suggest that film, but it didn't make the list of nominees, which suggests that almost no one else recommended it, which leads me to think that some people might have been confused about the year for which THAT film was eligible, too.)
: And I understand how and why Into Great Silence is a huge favorite for many of CT's writers for 2007... But how is it redemptive? Is the idea that silence somehow redeems business and noise? If that's the case, the film itself doesn't tell that story -- because it's all silence. That's be like Painted Veil being a story of redemption -- even if you never knew about Kitty's (and Walter's) original betrayals. Redemption requires being lost as the starting point. You know... "Once I was blind, now I see!" IGS is all "I can see!" without any sense of how any of those men were "blind" in the first place.
I think the point is that the AUDIENCE MEMBERS, rather than the characters in the film, have to pass through who knows how much business and noise (including the concession stand, I wonder?) before they can get to the silence of the film itself. (Just wondering, did anyone eat popcorn during this film, or notice anyone else who did? I know I felt a tad self-conscious when I munched ever-so-slowly on my popcorn during a screening of James Benning's 13 Lakes. NEVER have I been so conscious of the noise that one can make when plucking a few kernels from a tub of popcorn.)
Incidentally, while we're talking release dates, I cannot resist noting that Into Great Silence is a 2005 film, even if it did not play in North America outside of the festival circuit until 2007.
(I saw it on my laptop via a DVD screener that I borrowed before the Vancouver film festival in 2006 -- and thus, I have never really "experienced" the film. There was too much business and noise in my home at that time, courtesy of my then-9-month-old twins.)SDG wrote:
: It is an ill-defined category, and one very poor but functional definition might be "films that you might expect to see on Christianity Today's top 10 list precisely because it is Christianity Today and not the New York Times."
Yeah, considering the category was created largely because The Passion of the Christ failed to find a place AT ALL on our very first Critics' Choice list back in 2004. (Jeff has talked about this in at least two of his speeches that I've attended, so I don't think there's any secret about that now. For all I know, he might even talk about it in the book he was promoting at one of those speeches -- which just goes to show how lame I am for not having read all of it yet.)
QUOTE
Greg Wright wrote:
: How did Painted Veil miss the top ten? Wow. That film is all about redemption.
: How did Painted Veil miss the top ten? Wow. That film is all about redemption.
QUOTE
Peter wrote:
There may have been some confusion as to whether it was a 2006 film (which is when it was released in most big-ish cities, including even Vancouver;
There may have been some confusion as to whether it was a 2006 film (which is when it was released in most big-ish cities, including even Vancouver;
Bingo. I didn't realize it was available for this list, or I would have included it.
And for what it's worth, I struggle with defining the "Redeeming" list too. I cast my Critics Choice votes precisely because of their beauty and artistic excellence... which I consider to be highly redemptive qualities.
I might say that the Redeeming list includes films that are most obviously uplifting, most obviously concerned with matters of spiritual growth, most directly inspiring. The films on this list lend themselves to being boiled down to some lessons learned.
Critics Choice films... I can make arguments that the films I voted for are tremendously redemptive. But it would take longer to explain, and most moviegoers probably wouldn't leave the theater thinking, "Golly, that was inspiring!!"
QUOTE (Peter T Chattaway @ Jan 29 2008, 05:01 PM)
For all I know, he might even talk about it in the book he was promoting at one of those speeches -- which just goes to show how lame I am for not having read all of it yet.)
You mean, you haven't seen the part where he talks about his thrilling victory over you in table tennis?
QUOTE (Peter T Chattaway @ Jan 29 2008, 10:01 PM)
In that light, it's a little odd to see that The Lives of Others, a widely-acclaimed-for-its-redemptiveness 2006 Oscar winner that went into wide release in 2007, appears on NEITHER list -- and yes, I did suggest that film, but it didn't make the list of nominees, which suggests that almost no one else recommended it, which leads me to think that some people might have been confused about the year for which THAT film was eligible, too.)
Peter, I can verify that at least two other CT critics (and I'm one of them) ranked The Lives of Others high on their CT votes, and FWIW (since you've let the cat out of the bag and revealed that it doesn't make the Critics Choice list either) it was my #1 pick for "the one that got away" -- but it must have been high on Brandon Fibbs's "got-away" noms too, because he got to write it up for the "got away" list. (I got another good film.)
And yes, my assessment as well, as Mark M. can attest, is that the only reason it didn't make BOTH lists is that not enough critics saw it. It's probably our most egregious oversight this year (although who knows, I didn't see The Painted Veil so maybe THAT was the biggest oversight).
SDG wrote:
: . . . since you've let the cat out of the bag and revealed that it doesn't make the Critics Choice list either . . .
Ack! no! no! no! I meant it appeared on "neither" the 2006 nor 2007 lists, not that it had appeared on "neither" the Most Redeeming nor Critics' Choice lists!
: . . . it was my #1 pick for "the one that got away" -- but it must have been high on Brandon Fibbs's "got-away" noms too, because he got to write it up for the "got away" list.
It was #5 on mine. The Painted Veil, in fact, was #1 on mine (despite not being on any of my previous lists; this is because it turned up on that list of ALL the films that had been suggested, whether or not they got nominated in the end; up until that point, I had assumed the film wasn't even eligible), but Camerin got that one (presumably because she was the one who had suggested it in the first place).
: . . . (although who knows, I didn't see The Painted Veil so maybe THAT was the biggest oversight).
I didn't see it until it came out on video last summer, and I was all prepared to put it on my personal Top Ten list for 2007 until I checked and discovered that it had been released in Vancouver in the last week or so of 2006 ... and since MY lists are based on when films go into regular release in Vancouver, this means I cannot include The Painted Veil in my Top Ten list for 2007 but must, instead, regard the film as a significant omission from my Top Ten list for 2006.
: . . . since you've let the cat out of the bag and revealed that it doesn't make the Critics Choice list either . . .
Ack! no! no! no! I meant it appeared on "neither" the 2006 nor 2007 lists, not that it had appeared on "neither" the Most Redeeming nor Critics' Choice lists!
: . . . it was my #1 pick for "the one that got away" -- but it must have been high on Brandon Fibbs's "got-away" noms too, because he got to write it up for the "got away" list.
It was #5 on mine. The Painted Veil, in fact, was #1 on mine (despite not being on any of my previous lists; this is because it turned up on that list of ALL the films that had been suggested, whether or not they got nominated in the end; up until that point, I had assumed the film wasn't even eligible), but Camerin got that one (presumably because she was the one who had suggested it in the first place).
: . . . (although who knows, I didn't see The Painted Veil so maybe THAT was the biggest oversight).
I didn't see it until it came out on video last summer, and I was all prepared to put it on my personal Top Ten list for 2007 until I checked and discovered that it had been released in Vancouver in the last week or so of 2006 ... and since MY lists are based on when films go into regular release in Vancouver, this means I cannot include The Painted Veil in my Top Ten list for 2007 but must, instead, regard the film as a significant omission from my Top Ten list for 2006.
I'm pleased with this list. There are always differences of opinion on these kinds of artificial things - but it is "predominantly right."
I agree that The Great Debaters is a very good film - and redemption is always an argument - but I would not have put it in place of any of the top 10.
Having not seen all of the ONES THAT GOT AWAY list I don't know if there are some there that should replace a top 10. I did like BUCKET LIST a lot, though.
Denny
I agree that The Great Debaters is a very good film - and redemption is always an argument - but I would not have put it in place of any of the top 10.
Having not seen all of the ONES THAT GOT AWAY list I don't know if there are some there that should replace a top 10. I did like BUCKET LIST a lot, though.
Denny
Oops, my bad. That was unfortunate. Well, at least it was a negative leak.
Okay. That all makes "sense."
Jeffrey wrote: "I might say that the Redeeming list includes films that are most obviously uplifting, most obviously concerned with matters of spiritual growth, most directly inspiring. The films on this list lend themselves to being boiled down to some lessons learned."
I agree. Some of the films are inspiring but may not be the best examples of Redeeming Movies.
Greg states a good example: "And I understand how and why Into Great Silence is a huge favorite for many of CT's writers for 2007... But how is it redemptive?"
Some movies which have redemption as a MAJOR theme are: Away from Her (enduring love and loyalty redeem the once unfaithful husband), The Lives of Others (beauty has the power to transform), Amazing Grace (the slave dealer's repentance inspires a man to continue his fight to abolish slavery in England), The Namesake (after rebelling against everything that is important to his father, a young man finds his way back to his family heritage.) These inspiring films can be found on the Reel Inspiration Best Films List. http://reelinspiration.blogspot.com/search... Films list
Of course, The Kite Runner's main theme is redemption. The main character goes back to save the child of the friend he betrayed.
The Freedom Writers seemed an odd choice. I'm not sure the teacher's storyline qualifies. (Is she redeemed from being a bad teacher?) However, her students rejecting their gang life certainly does.
In Bella, the careless driver is redeemed by saving an unborn child. Noelle, a simular film, could be included for having the same theme.
I think a clearer definition of what the Redeeming Movies list is going for may help.
Jana Segal
http://reelinspiration.blogspot.com/
I agree. Some of the films are inspiring but may not be the best examples of Redeeming Movies.
Greg states a good example: "And I understand how and why Into Great Silence is a huge favorite for many of CT's writers for 2007... But how is it redemptive?"
Some movies which have redemption as a MAJOR theme are: Away from Her (enduring love and loyalty redeem the once unfaithful husband), The Lives of Others (beauty has the power to transform), Amazing Grace (the slave dealer's repentance inspires a man to continue his fight to abolish slavery in England), The Namesake (after rebelling against everything that is important to his father, a young man finds his way back to his family heritage.) These inspiring films can be found on the Reel Inspiration Best Films List. http://reelinspiration.blogspot.com/search... Films list
Of course, The Kite Runner's main theme is redemption. The main character goes back to save the child of the friend he betrayed.
The Freedom Writers seemed an odd choice. I'm not sure the teacher's storyline qualifies. (Is she redeemed from being a bad teacher?) However, her students rejecting their gang life certainly does.
In Bella, the careless driver is redeemed by saving an unborn child. Noelle, a simular film, could be included for having the same theme.
I think a clearer definition of what the Redeeming Movies list is going for may help.
Jana Segal
http://reelinspiration.blogspot.com/
As an aside, I think Crosswalk has previously comprised a Top 10 list that was strictly family-friendly, without ever stating it. (I haven't seen the CW lists previous to last year's list.) This year, they came up with one list, with a somewhat vague description of the qualification at the beginning of the article introducing the list. As you can see from the comments posted below the article, someone is highly upset that we chose Once, because of the abundance of "f"-words in the first few minutes, even though the capsule review says the film is rated R for language right at the top. Too bad the viewer didn't persevere and get to the more morally agreeable aspects of the film, but I can't blame him/her for being sensitive to language. Still, I think the comment may hint at a feeling of betrayal based on past CW lists, which played things pretty safe.
So why am I posting about CW's list in this CT thread? Only to say that, although I like CT's list(s), and like to read multiple "best of" lists, I really can't stand the segmenting of films into multiple lists based on these criteria. While Crosswalk's choices are a very mixed bag, I appreciate that there's just one list. I find multiple lists confusing -- and I'm a film critic! Part of me believes that whatever CT's intentions, it simply doesn't want to be bothered to limit itself to 10 titles. Why not have 20? (Admittedly, Crosswalk throws in "the B list," but still, CT already has a "Ones That Got Away" as part of its first list. How many titles will be on list 2?)
I was mentioning these reservations to a friend, sending him links to the various lists at CT and CW, and telling him there would be more to come. He responded that he appreciated having a long list of titles to choose from. He didn't seem to care about the distinction between the two CT lists. He was just happy to have 20 movies (at least) brought to his attention, rather than 10. I'm OK with that; let's get the word out on as many worthwhile films as we can. But if "artistic excellence" is what Christian film criticism is about -- and I like to think that's what it should be about -- let's see redemptive elements as one category of that, and not as something separate.
Just my two cents.
So why am I posting about CW's list in this CT thread? Only to say that, although I like CT's list(s), and like to read multiple "best of" lists, I really can't stand the segmenting of films into multiple lists based on these criteria. While Crosswalk's choices are a very mixed bag, I appreciate that there's just one list. I find multiple lists confusing -- and I'm a film critic! Part of me believes that whatever CT's intentions, it simply doesn't want to be bothered to limit itself to 10 titles. Why not have 20? (Admittedly, Crosswalk throws in "the B list," but still, CT already has a "Ones That Got Away" as part of its first list. How many titles will be on list 2?)
I was mentioning these reservations to a friend, sending him links to the various lists at CT and CW, and telling him there would be more to come. He responded that he appreciated having a long list of titles to choose from. He didn't seem to care about the distinction between the two CT lists. He was just happy to have 20 movies (at least) brought to his attention, rather than 10. I'm OK with that; let's get the word out on as many worthwhile films as we can. But if "artistic excellence" is what Christian film criticism is about -- and I like to think that's what it should be about -- let's see redemptive elements as one category of that, and not as something separate.
Just my two cents.
QUOTE (Greg Wright @ Jan 30 2008, 10:33 AM)
Okay. That all makes "sense."
Well, it's not a perfect system, and my glosses may leave something to be desired, but I hope it makes at least some sense, without scare quotes.
QUOTE (SDG @ Jan 30 2008, 01:17 PM)
Well, it's not a perfect system, and my glosses may leave something to be desired, but I hope it makes at least some sense, without scare quotes.
Well, yes, of course -- as much as sense can be made, all things considered! It's pretty clear that, as is, the list doesn't seem sensible, even to a great many of the participants in creating the list. So it's fine for what it is. I've been able understand past selections much easier, and this year's number one just didn't seem to fit.
QUOTE (Greg Wright @ Jan 30 2008, 03:30 PM)
Well, yes, of course -- as much as sense can be made, all things considered! It's pretty clear that, as is, the list doesn't seem sensible, even to a great many of the participants in creating the list. So it's fine for what it is. I've been able understand past selections much easier, and this year's number one just didn't seem to fit.
I guess we have to disagree. Whatever the limitations or ambiguities of the system, my starting point is that Into Great Silence -- along with the likes of Sophie Scholl, The Return, Hotel Rwanda, The Passion of the Christ, and for that matter The Lives of Others -- is an archetypal example of the raison d'etre for this list.
I might even go so far as to say that for me the necessity of recognizing these films comes first; if necessary, the criteria and the category name should be tailored as necessary to fit the films.
I find a sense of beauty, mystery, and excellence to be as redeeming, or moreso, than a story that is "useful" primarily because it can be reduced to a lesson: "Stay faithful to your spouse and there will be joy", or whatever.
If any film from this year is really going to make a difference in REDEEMING me from anything, I think Into Great Silence is the one. It draws me into a pursuit of mystery. It causes me to become quiet and listen for that still small voice. It reminds me that when we slow down and pay attention, the simplest things become icons, metaphors, a language of grace. It reminds me of the cost of discipleship and relationship with God. I could go on and on. It doesn't boil down to "an inspiring message" that I can sum up for you. It is an experience, and one that I become thirsty for, and that satisfies if I enter into it with the right spirit.
In a similar way, "There Will Be Blood" (for this moviegoer, anyway), is a meditation on the mysterious and subversive ways in which evil can infect, corrupt, and destroy good things... like vocation, fatherhood, childhood, brotherhood, business, community, church, etc. When I meditate on the film in this way, I find new observations, and sometimes I see troubling reflections of myself.
That is redemptive.
Christ's simple observations were redemptive, of course. But the parables were mysterious, troubling, and controversial. Even moreso were the signs and wonders. And then there was the cross. Hardy the Feel-Good Moment of Christ's ministry. It was a bloody horror that confused and disgusted and terrified and traumatized even his closest followers. But it was redemptive.
(Of course, for it to *be* redemptive, there is some responsibility on the viewer's part to attend in a particular spirit...)
If any film from this year is really going to make a difference in REDEEMING me from anything, I think Into Great Silence is the one. It draws me into a pursuit of mystery. It causes me to become quiet and listen for that still small voice. It reminds me that when we slow down and pay attention, the simplest things become icons, metaphors, a language of grace. It reminds me of the cost of discipleship and relationship with God. I could go on and on. It doesn't boil down to "an inspiring message" that I can sum up for you. It is an experience, and one that I become thirsty for, and that satisfies if I enter into it with the right spirit.
In a similar way, "There Will Be Blood" (for this moviegoer, anyway), is a meditation on the mysterious and subversive ways in which evil can infect, corrupt, and destroy good things... like vocation, fatherhood, childhood, brotherhood, business, community, church, etc. When I meditate on the film in this way, I find new observations, and sometimes I see troubling reflections of myself.
That is redemptive.
Christ's simple observations were redemptive, of course. But the parables were mysterious, troubling, and controversial. Even moreso were the signs and wonders. And then there was the cross. Hardy the Feel-Good Moment of Christ's ministry. It was a bloody horror that confused and disgusted and terrified and traumatized even his closest followers. But it was redemptive.
(Of course, for it to *be* redemptive, there is some responsibility on the viewer's part to attend in a particular spirit...)
Well, it's CT's list, so as long as everyone there is happy with it, that's great.
But by your latest definitions, SDG and Jeffrey, it just sounds like the list ought to be called "The Year's Best Films." And that's not a very helpful distinction for readers, particularly since that's List Number 2.
The name of the list really ought to have something to do with the list's reason for being. Otherwise it's like saying my bowl of soup is worth recognizing as soup even though I call it "bread." The person asking for soup and getting bread is likely to be pretty disappointed, regardless of how good the soup is.
"Redeem" is a very specific word, theologically. Something isn't "redeeming" simply because it's "worthwhile," except from a strictly secular point of view that doesn't value actual redemption. In a Christian context, it seems to me, "redeeming" ought to mean "demonstrative of the act of Redemption." Big R.
(Not trying to get anyone to change minds on anything... Just explaining why the title still doesn't make proper sense to me.)
But by your latest definitions, SDG and Jeffrey, it just sounds like the list ought to be called "The Year's Best Films." And that's not a very helpful distinction for readers, particularly since that's List Number 2.
The name of the list really ought to have something to do with the list's reason for being. Otherwise it's like saying my bowl of soup is worth recognizing as soup even though I call it "bread." The person asking for soup and getting bread is likely to be pretty disappointed, regardless of how good the soup is.
"Redeem" is a very specific word, theologically. Something isn't "redeeming" simply because it's "worthwhile," except from a strictly secular point of view that doesn't value actual redemption. In a Christian context, it seems to me, "redeeming" ought to mean "demonstrative of the act of Redemption." Big R.
(Not trying to get anyone to change minds on anything... Just explaining why the title still doesn't make proper sense to me.)
My last post was not a defense of the definition of "Redeeming" according to CT's list. It was an explanation of why I find it challenging to vote on that list. Because the votes I turn in for the "Critics Choice" list have everything to do with what I think is "redemptive."
So, for the Redeeming list, I go back to what I said earlier:
Because that is the sense I get of what CT means by the list.
So, for the Redeeming list, I go back to what I said earlier:
QUOTE
... films that are most obviously uplifting, most obviously concerned with matters of spiritual growth, most directly inspiring. The films on this list lend themselves to being boiled down to some lessons learned.
Because that is the sense I get of what CT means by the list.
I think we all agree that the title is imprecise. FWIW, though, "The Year's Best Films" to me at least probably correlates more closely with the intention of the "Critics Choice" list.
As I mentioned, at least in my thinking, the intention of this list correlates with what my site ratings try to recognize as "moral and spiritual value." Again, the 45 films of the well-known 1995 Vatican film list are subdivided into three groups of 15 under the headings "Religion," "Values" and "Art," the first two of which converge with what I think of as the intention of the "most redeeming" category.
Although in this context "redemption" is tethered to moral and spiritual categories, in general the word simply refers to liberation. It would obviously be contrary to the intention of the list to interpret "liberation" too broadly to include, say, "liberation of the imagination" or something of the sort. But whatever is felt to have special spiritual or moral liberating significance seems to me clearly to warrant recognition here.
I think many of us experience Into Great Silence as a spiritually liberating film, as well as a film that is fundamentally about redemption. If there is anything that can be said with certainty about the film, it is that in the rigor and discipline of monastic life the monks have found true freedom. If that isn't a spiritually liberating and redemptive theme, I can't imagine what would be.
As I mentioned, at least in my thinking, the intention of this list correlates with what my site ratings try to recognize as "moral and spiritual value." Again, the 45 films of the well-known 1995 Vatican film list are subdivided into three groups of 15 under the headings "Religion," "Values" and "Art," the first two of which converge with what I think of as the intention of the "most redeeming" category.
Although in this context "redemption" is tethered to moral and spiritual categories, in general the word simply refers to liberation. It would obviously be contrary to the intention of the list to interpret "liberation" too broadly to include, say, "liberation of the imagination" or something of the sort. But whatever is felt to have special spiritual or moral liberating significance seems to me clearly to warrant recognition here.
I think many of us experience Into Great Silence as a spiritually liberating film, as well as a film that is fundamentally about redemption. If there is anything that can be said with certainty about the film, it is that in the rigor and discipline of monastic life the monks have found true freedom. If that isn't a spiritually liberating and redemptive theme, I can't imagine what would be.
Christian wrote:
: Part of me believes that whatever CT's intentions, it simply doesn't want to be bothered to limit itself to 10 titles. Why not have 20?
Well, not necessarily 20. There have always been overlaps between the "Most Redeeming" and "Critics Choice" lists -- the two lists aren't exactly segregated or anything like that. (E.g., Children of Men was #1 on last year's "Critics Choice" list and #10 on last year's "Most Redeeming" list. And The New World was #3 on our "Critics Choice" list and #2 on our "Most Redeeming" list. And Sophie Scholl was #6 on our "Critics Choice" list and #3 on our "Most Redeeming" list. And Tsotsi was #9 on our "Critics Choice" list and #7 on our "Most Redeeming" list.)
All this debate over the meaning of "redeeming" reminds me of the debates we have had here at A&F over the meaning of "spiritual" whenever we compile our Top 100.
And the debate over whether the "Most Redeeming" list is about "lessons learned" is kind of funny, given that the blurb on Batman Begins for 2005's list concludes: "Lesson learned."
: Part of me believes that whatever CT's intentions, it simply doesn't want to be bothered to limit itself to 10 titles. Why not have 20?
Well, not necessarily 20. There have always been overlaps between the "Most Redeeming" and "Critics Choice" lists -- the two lists aren't exactly segregated or anything like that. (E.g., Children of Men was #1 on last year's "Critics Choice" list and #10 on last year's "Most Redeeming" list. And The New World was #3 on our "Critics Choice" list and #2 on our "Most Redeeming" list. And Sophie Scholl was #6 on our "Critics Choice" list and #3 on our "Most Redeeming" list. And Tsotsi was #9 on our "Critics Choice" list and #7 on our "Most Redeeming" list.)
All this debate over the meaning of "redeeming" reminds me of the debates we have had here at A&F over the meaning of "spiritual" whenever we compile our Top 100.
And the debate over whether the "Most Redeeming" list is about "lessons learned" is kind of funny, given that the blurb on Batman Begins for 2005's list concludes: "Lesson learned."
I'm cool. Thanks for all the patient clarification!
Interesting list... Looks like I have a few films to look forward to, since I've only seen about half.
As for the 'ones that got away' list, the listed films all have the name of the recommending critic except for EVE AND THE FIREHORSE. Who recommended that one, may I ask? Just curious, and still looking forward to seeing that one.
As for the 'ones that got away' list, the listed films all have the name of the recommending critic except for EVE AND THE FIREHORSE. Who recommended that one, may I ask? Just curious, and still looking forward to seeing that one.
Mark Moring.
And now for the second list, AKA the "critics' choice" list.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.