Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
M. Dale Prins

Nominations for the 2011 A&F 100

47 posts in this topic

See subhead. Greg's opening remarks quoted from the 2010 nominations list.

It is time to open general nominations for the ArtsandFaith.com Top 100 Films List for 2010.

Here’s how it is going to work.

1) All films on the previous years’ lists will be grandfathered in automatically. According to our preliminary tally, that’s about 155 films. We will create a list of the 155 films for you soon. Update 1/11/10: The grandfathered list of 150 is here.

2) All ArtsandFaith.com members may each nominate up to 25 additional films by replying to this thread, which will stay open until January 23, 2010.

3) Nominations must follow the following format (a little work, true, but that means you really have to believe in what you’re nominating!):

Title:

Director:

Running Time:

Language:

IMDB Link:

YouTube Link (a clip of the film):

Link to the A&F thread on the film (if there is one):

4) We are going to try to get away without worrying too much about the issue of eligibility. If there is some issue concerning eligibility—whether a film has been released in North America or what have you—we can start a thread to discuss that. But until that point we are going to attempt not to sweat this issue too

much.

5) Please save discussion for later (and another thread), so this nominations thread doesn’t get cluttered.

6) If anyone see anything flawed in our proposed system, please point it out ASAP and we'll consider making adjustments.

Happy Nominating!

Dale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things we need to think about:

  • How trilogies or series are to be nominated
  • Films vs TV miniseries (is Kieslowski's Decalogue bending the rules?)
  • Any other lists we might want to grandfather in (Sight and Sound?). This year we grandfathered in all Top100 winning films of the past, but no outside lists.
  • Remembering to nominate the classics like The Godfather and Citizen Kane, etc.
  • Whether we should reconsider the scale. 1 to 5 or 1 to 10?
  • Aesthetics and usability of the poll: ease of voting, etc.

Comment now, in the height of your disgruntlement! ;) Just joking. You all have been splendid voters and commenters. Here's hoping for another swell list in 2011!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it be that we should thin down the grandfathering? (So to speak.)

Or should the pool of nominees simply grow every year?

We're up to 370 now.

Seems like some should be dropped from the list. Possibly those that received scores of less than X....

Anyway, something to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[*]Any other lists we might want to grandfather in (Sight and Sound?). This year we grandfathered in all Top100 winning films of the past, but no outside lists.

[*]Remembering to nominate the classics like The Godfather and Citizen Kane, etc.[*]Whether we should reconsider the scale. 1 to 5 or 1 to 10?[*]Aesthetics and usability of the poll: ease of voting, etc.

I feel no obligation to grandfather in other lists. If the voters here think The Godfather and Citizen Kane are worthy of the A&F 100, they'll make that known with their votes.

Neither film has generated much discussion over the years here, unless I'm forgetting their respective threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[*]Any other lists we might want to grandfather in (Sight and Sound?). This year we grandfathered in all Top100 winning films of the past, but no outside lists.

[*]Remembering to nominate the classics like The Godfather and Citizen Kane, etc.[*]Whether we should reconsider the scale. 1 to 5 or 1 to 10?[*]Aesthetics and usability of the poll: ease of voting, etc.

I feel no obligation to grandfather in other lists. If the voters here think The Godfather and Citizen Kane are worthy of the A&F 100, they'll make that known with their votes.

Neither film has generated much discussion over the years here, unless I'm forgetting their respective threads.

I agree. From now on if we want them nominated, we need to nominate them.

But it gets really hard to continue nominating when the nomination thread gets up to six or eleven or eighteen pages by next year. Cuz then you have to go through every page in order to know if it's been nominated, and by the time you figure it out, you forget what you were trying to nominate in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it gets really hard to continue nominating when the nomination thread gets up to six or eleven or eighteen pages by next year. Cuz then you have to go through every page in order to know if it's been nominated, and by the time you figure it out, you forget what you were trying to nominate in the first place.

How about pinning a thread with a regularly updated list of the title/year of fresh nominations? Just something to quickly check before proceeding with your own choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it gets really hard to continue nominating when the nomination thread gets up to six or eleven or eighteen pages by next year. Cuz then you have to go through every page in order to know if it's been nominated, and by the time you figure it out, you forget what you were trying to nominate in the first place.

How about pinning a thread with a regularly updated list of the title/year of fresh nominations? Just something to quickly check before proceeding with your own choices.

I was thinking about that too. We can do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Aesthetics an d usability of the poll: ease of voting, etc.

Concerning aesthetics and usability, it would be nice to have a behavior for the page that looks like this. It's a page from my computer science class' website. For readability, it highlights whatever row of the table you're selecting. I'm not sure how to implement that behavior, so it's just a suggestion; although it doesn't look like it should be too difficult.

Also, I'm not sure why we have a 'Haven't Seen It' category that counts differently from simply not marking anything at all. Can't we assume that if we don't fill in a rating, we haven't seen it, and factor in all non-votes as such?

Thanks for all your hard work, the list looks awesome. Can't wait to see the website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I alluded to in the 2010 general discussion thread, maybe the grandfathered list could go through a cutting process. All these films have been nominated at some point, so I'd hate to see them just thrown away without a fair hearing. Maybe we could at some point put up a list like we just had for paring down the grandfathered nominees. Those who receive a score of X or lower get cut - or something like that.

Also, maybe a cut-off point for directors - no more than 3-5 films.

We're voting on a top 100 list, so I think we could have a nominee list of 350-500 easily (this should become a set number), but the bulk of the effort I think for future lists would be exactly narrowing down nominee lists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I alluded to in the 2010 general discussion thread, maybe the grandfathered list could go through a cutting process. All these films have been nominated at some point, so I'd hate to see them just thrown away without a fair hearing. Maybe we could at some point put up a list like we just had for paring down the grandfathered nominees. Those who receive a score of X or lower get cut - or something like that.

[some snarkiness elicited.] Why not just use the results from the poll we just did and cut off the bottom 25% (or whatever percentage you prefer)? It would seem to save us some work.

Dale

Edited by M. Dale Prins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I alluded to in the 2010 general discussion thread, maybe the grandfathered list could go through a cutting process. All these films have been nominated at some point, so I'd hate to see them just thrown away without a fair hearing. Maybe we could at some point put up a list like we just had for paring down the grandfathered nominees. Those who receive a score of X or lower get cut - or something like that.

[some snarkiness elicited.] Why not just use the results from the poll we just did and cut off the bottom 25% (or whatever percentage you prefer)? It would seem to save us some work.

No snarkiness needed. I agree.

I thought of this after my post. But I'll let the suggestion stand to the collective powers-that-be.

Maybe also a rule of: films cut must wait 2-3 years for re-nomination. A database must be maintained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Aesthetics an d usability of the poll: ease of voting, etc.

C

Also, I'm not sure why we have a 'Haven't Seen It' category that counts differently from simply not marking anything at all. Can't we assume that if we don't fill in a rating, we haven't seen it, and factor in all non-votes as such?

IIRC, when the poll first went up, you had to pick a rating for every film on the list, necessitating the "haven't seen it" option. After a while, though, the format was changed to allow you to skip some titles. If we went with the "ok to skip" format again, it would make sense to eliminate "haven't seen it". With the way the survey was displayed, though, clicking a box for every title made it easier for me to keep track of where I was on the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that we're done I think of one we didn't even have nominated so I'll start off for the next time.

As Calvinist as I think the list is already, I hesitate to bring it up, but...

Title: Hardcore

Director: Paul Schrader

Running Time: 109

Language: English

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079271/

YouTube Link (a clip of the film): couldn't find one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, maybe a cut-off point for directors - no more than 3-5 films.

It's not a bad idea, it would make room for other films as well. However, if we do it this way, I would want to pre-vote per director which films will be allowed into the voting process. Yes, that makes things more complicated. But it certainly makes it more fair.

PS I say this as the guy that is probably most in love with all the Bergmans on the list, but I'm willing to see some of those go for the inclusion of other important directors.

Edited by Persona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a couple nominations to make:

Title: Lawrence of Arabia

Director: David Lean

Running Time: Actually, I'm completely unsure. The IMDB page shows 6 different running times and I don't know which one I've seen. Between 216 and 228 minutes I expect.

Language: English

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056172/

Youtube link (a clip of the film):

Title: Perfume: Story of a Murderer

Director: Tom Tykwer

Running Time: 147 minutes

Language: English

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0396171/

YouTube Link (a clip of the film): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAC1VnKqBt4&feature=related

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Title: Perfume: Story of a Murderer

Director: Tom Tykwer

I think the boards would burst, simply crack in half, were this to make the Top 100. It'd be pretty funny to watch though. Talk about a reaction!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few I've thought of; I don't believe any of these duplicate the most recent nominations.

Title: Barcelona

Director: Whit Stillman

Running Time: 101m

Language: English

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109219/

Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILxixHrq7Lk

Title: Gates of Heaven

Director: Errol Morris

Running Time: 85m

Language: English

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077598/

Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjEZv6y_YO4

Title: Housekeeping

Director: Bill Forsyth

Running Time: 116m

Language: English

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093225/

Video Link: http://www.reelzchannel.com/trailer-clips/23588/housekeeping-trailer (stupid trailer, but the only thing I could find)

Title: Leila

Director: Dariush Mehrjui

Running Time: 102m

Language: Persian

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116851/

Video Link:

Title: My Dinner with André

Director: Louis Malle

Running Time: 110m

Language: English

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082783/

Video Link:

Title: Naked

Director: Mike Leigh

Running Time: 131m

Language: English

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107653/

Video Link:

Title: Time Out (L'emploi du temps)

Director: Laurent Cantet

Running Time: 134m

Language: French

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0279065/

Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw2B5IDCn6Y

If shorts are allowed (there was one in the top 100, right?):

Title: "Play"

Director: Anthony Minghella

Running Time: 16m

Language: English

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268536/

Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdTjRumkT9k (part 1/2)

Edited by M. Dale Prins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm. Well, I'm not going to make any nominations until later this year, but as of right now, I plan on re-nominating 2046, APOCALYPSE NOW, VERTIGO, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, BRAZIL, FANTASIA, FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE, and THERE WILL BE BLOOD. Others that may or may not get a nomination from me include NOSFERATU: PHANTOM DER NACHT, GREED, THE THREEPENNY OPERA, CABARET, NETWORK, METROPOLIS, SUNSET BOULEVARD, CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, TOUCH OF EVIL, THE TRIAL, FRANKENSTEIN, and BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Calvinist as I think the list is already

Is it? As one of the unapologetic Calvinists at A&F, this hadn't occurred to me. I'll take another look, but if you wouldn't mind guiding me a little in understanding your interpretation, that would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For 2011

Title: Pyaasa (1957)

Director: Guru Dutt

Running Time: 146 min

Language: Hindi

IMDB Link:iMDB Pyaasa

YouTube Link:

(No subtitles on YouTube, but Vijay is asking, "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world?"

Pyaasa3.jpg

I know Indian Cinema is represented in the AF100 by the Apu Trilogy, but Pyaasa deserves significant consideration for next year's list. It tells the story of the poet Vijay (Guru Dutt) whose message is rejected until he is believed dead. A prostitute pays for his poems to be published, which elevates Vijay's legend. It is an unbelievable film that has been recognized on Sight & Sound's 2002 Poll and Time Magazine's "All-TIME 100" (Richard Corliss).

Unfortunately, the DVD quality is generally VHS level at best. If possible, pick up the Yash Raj or Eros (the Ultra version is unwatchable). DVDs are pretty cheap ($7-12). Netflix also carries it.

For some of you, this will become one of your favorite movies. Really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In old iterations of the list, we had a "Nominating Committee" who decided which of the 300+ nominated films were "electable," taking into account things like how many times a director could appear, what the cutoff date was (we didn't have one this year, which is why A Serious Man made it on--under old rules it wouldn't have), etc. Maybe we could do that again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if I want a committee deciding which nominations belong and which don't, but it would perhaps be wise to have a cut-off date to keep us from nominating too many "flavors of the month," and it would also be nice to have a cut-off for directors, keeping only the top 2-3 nominated films attached to said director.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know Indian Cinema is represented in the AF100 by the Apu Trilogy, but Pyaasa deserves significant consideration for next year's list.

Welcome! And thanks for adding another film to our collective "must watch" list.

<_<:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don't think it does any good at this point to nominate 300 films that no one sees. If you want to change the list, start a thread. Convince us. It's how the current Top 100 was made. Nominations are nice and all, but it's not where I start selecting films to watch.

I've seen a fair bit of complaining about the list from all kinds of members. I'd rather see convincing arguments for the selections they think we missed. And not country of origin or genre -- actual selection. Narrow, not wide.

Even if we nominate 300 films before next year, does it really make sense to think any of us would even watch a quarter of those? An eighth? A twentieth? And if we see, say 15 (1/20) of the 300 nominated films, whose nominated films should we choose to see? And why? Of the fifteen nominated films I might see in the next year, would I choose Darren or Peter or Ryan or Jeffrey or Matt or Dale etc?

To me, it doesn't make much sense at this point. They're just names that sit on a list. What's already turning out to be a very long list, at that.

Edit: This is not intended to single any one person out. There are already twelve films nominated here and I can't name one of them. (without looking, except for the Indian one because I just looked)

Edited by Persona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For some of you, this will become one of your favorite movies. Really.

Hi watchingtheology. Welcome to A&F.

Do we have a twenty post rule or is this a valid nomination?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0