Jump to content

Top 25 Divine Comedies: Results


TylerMcCabe
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't think the topic was too broad. I think it was a topic that we, as a community, haven't discussed as extensively as we have other topics, and perhaps more remedial viewing was needed than on some other topics. I cop to that, as has Jeff, among others.

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 202
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

: I also want to restate that there is a fifth response.

: That is, no-revote, but craft a second algorithm based on the exact same voting results that takes into account a single comedy auteur per entry. Heck, make it weighted if you want.

 

This seems a viable option to me. I don't know how different anyone's votes would have been if they had known ahead of time that there would be room for only one film per auteur, but still.

 

Pursuant to Nick's proposed 5th way: Can we see the full list of films in ranked order, so we can see what the top 25 would look like if we tightened the rule from "three films per auteur" to two or even one? (I would probably be okay with this after-the-fact patch.)

Edited by SDG

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kenmorefield wrote:

: . . . those whose votes are not weighted . . .

 

Just to clarify: If I'm not mistaken, there are something like five different "weights" that a person's vote can have. It's not simply "those who have written over 3000 posts" and "those who have written less than 3000 posts".

Yeah, there are five tiers, so this talk of a "magic 17" seems inaccurate to me. I also don't think the weighting is that powerful. I'm in the top tier, but these lists have rarely looked much like I've wanted them to, and many of the films I've passionately championed for the past few lists have failed to make the cut.

 

I'd also like to note some of the users who didn't vote (and whose contributions I value a great deal) aren't in that top tier.

Edited by Ryan H.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also want to restate that there is a fifth response.

That is, no-revote, but craft a second algorithm based on the exact same voting results that takes into account a single comedy auteur per entry. Heck, make it weighted if you want.

This is seminal, because Charlie Chaplin's comic genius is sufficient for the list at City Lights, with Modern Times and The Great Dictator (and any other nominated film of his that got more than one vote), can be listed in the write-up as well. Same with the Coen Brothers, Wes Anderson, Woody Allen, John Lasseter, and the twenty other DIVERSE comic geniuses that got votes. GROUNDHOG DAY would remain #1, but it would also encourage you to check out (non-charted, but probably voted on) Ghostbusters. Dr Strangelove can focus on Peter Sellers as the comic force of that film, and can point to BEING THERE. And on it goes.

This will make room for at least ten more entries. Diversity will reign. And the list will be most valuable.

I do appreciate the idea. Two things:

First, many of us voted based on the understanding that one director could place with at least three films. For example, I would have voted differently if I had known in advance that Whit Stillman and the Coen Brothers could each only get one film. It would also be strange to craft the algorithm that you are suggesting only for this one theme. The specific theme strongly affects which directors you are going to see. Many of the greatest directors in film will necessarily be excluded from a particular theme, which gives a smaller selection to work with. I like parts of your idea, but it would so significantly alter the list (especially without any further vote) and make it different than anyone was thinking of at the very beginning of the process, that I'd worry again about fairness.

Second, I think we should further thresh out your idea, and if we do it could affect our selection process in the future. I can foresee limiting selections to only one director running up against some objections you may not have considered yet. Both your idea and any objections to it would deserve time to discuss and think through. But I suspect that, for this list, we don't have that time. If we do a second themed list this year, then we will have the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

: I also want to restate that there is a fifth response.

: That is, no-revote, but craft a second algorithm based on the exact same voting results that takes into account a single comedy auteur per entry. Heck, make it weighted if you want.

 

This seems a viable option to me. I don't know how different anyone's votes would have been if they had known ahead of time that there would be room for only one film per auteur, but still.

 

Pursuant to Nick's proposed 5th way: Can we see the full list of films in ranked order, so we can see what the top 25 would look like if we tightened the rule from "three films per auteur" to two or even one? (I would probably be okay with this after-the-fact patch.)

 

 

Several of these "see also" is pure conjecture on my part, as I do not know the rankings.  Working off of the nominated list, from my best guess:

 

1. Groundhog Day (1993)

[also check out: What About Bob (1991), The Life Aquatic]

2. The Truman Show (1998)

3. A Serious Man (2009)

[also check out: O Brother Where Art Thou, The Big Lebowski]

4. City Lights (1931)

[also check out: Modern Times, The Great Dictator]

5. Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

[also check out: Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Royal Tennanbaums]

6. Sullivan's Travels (1941)

[also check out: Miracle At Morgan Creek]

7. Life of Brian (1979)

[also check out: The Fisher King, Brazil]

8. Dr. Strangelove (1964)

[also check out: Being There, The Party]

9. Lars and the Real Girl (2007)

10. Up (2009)

[also check out: Finding Nemo, Wall-E, and Ratatouille]

11. Metropolitan (1990)

[also check out: Barcelona, The Last Days of Disco]

12. Fiddler on the Roof (1971)

[also check out: Moonstruck]

13. Punch-Drunk Love (2002)

14. The Princess Bride (1987)

15. The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985)

[also check out: Hannah and Her Sisters, Alice, Midnight in Paris]

16. Amelie

...

 

[17-25] to be entered...

Nick Alexander

Keynote, Worship Leader, Comedian, Parodyist

Host of the Prayer Meeting Podcast - your virtual worship oasis. (Subscribe)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely empathize with Nick Alexander's sentiments.  Jeremy and co. delineated the timeline for nominations, voting, etc., in excruciating detail.  To expect them to do any more than this would be excessive.  At the risk of sounding a bit harsh, we all have busy lives, yet we all learn to allow time for the things we deem important, sometimes through mistakes and trial and error.  To fudge the timeline for certain folks whose votes we deem especially important does seem a tad elitist and exclusionary, as well as undermining of the entire process in a deck-stacking manner.

 

Again, I do wish the list were more diverse (Tati, Ozu, Tampopo, Hal Ashby), and it probably would be better to reduce the representation by particular companies (Pixar, Ghibli, whomever) or directors to two apiece for future Top 25 lists to allow for greater diversity. 

 

Also, if we're aiming to do another topical list later this year, perhaps it would be worth restarting the monthly film club to allow exposure to films that might otherwise be missed in the voting process.  (Fer instance, if we're doing a Memory list, Hiroshima Mon Amour might be a good film to discuss en masse.)  But for now, my vote is to leave the list as it stands, with the exception of reducing Pixar representation to 3 films.

To be an artist is never to avert one's eyes.
- Akira Kurosawa

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularcinephile/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I also want to restate that there is a fifth response.

That is, no-revote, but craft a second algorithm based on the exact same voting results that takes into account a single comedy auteur per entry. Heck, make it weighted if you want.

I do appreciate the idea. Two things:

First, many of us voted based on the understanding that one director could place with at least three films. For example, I would have voted differently if I had known in advance that Whit Stillman and the Coen Brothers could each only get one film. It would also be strange to craft the algorithm that you are suggesting only for this one theme. The specific theme strongly affects which directors you are going to see. Many of the greatest directors in film will necessarily be excluded from a particular theme, which gives a smaller selection to work with. I like parts of your idea, but it would so significantly alter the list (especially without any further vote) and make it different than anyone was thinking of at the very beginning of the process, that I'd worry again about fairness.

Second, I think we should further thresh out your idea, and if we do it could affect our selection process in the future. I can foresee limiting selections to only one director running up against some objections you may not have considered yet. Both your idea and any objections to it would deserve time to discuss and think through. But I suspect that, for this list, we don't have that time. If we do a second themed list this year, then we will have the time.

 

Wait. To try out Nick's 5th way, we don't need to write a new algorithm or do any new calculations, and it won't take any time. All we need is the full list, and we can go through by hand and quickly strike out any second or third contributions from a given auteur.

I appreciate your caveat that we might have voted differently based on a one-film per auteur approach, but couldn't we at least see what a list following this rule would look like, and then decide?

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice, Nick, that you're not strictly grouping them by director, but by actor as well (i.e. tying Kubrick's Strangelove to Ashby's Being There). While there's a case to be made for certain actors functioning as auteurs in their own right, if we were to go this route, I'd prefer to stick with just directors for clarity's sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

EDIT: The "divine" appendage, rather than narrowing "comedy" just compounded ambiguity by adding a second fuzzy term. Or so it seems to me.

 

Plus, as you said, people may have thought less about comedy and/or be less literate in it. 

 

 

I think Ken's analysis here is fairly accurate. We all seemed to have different ideas about what a "divine comedy" was. For example, I voted that a film still had to work well as a comedy (and a film), not just in "spiritual" content.

 

 

 

Also, if we're aiming to do another topical list later this year, perhaps it would be worth restarting the monthly film club to allow exposure to films that might otherwise be missed in the voting process.  (Fer instance, if we're doing a Memory list, Hiroshima Mon Amour might be a good film to discuss en masse.)  But for now, my vote is to leave the list as it stands, with the exception of reducing Pixar representation to 3 films.

 

I second both of Andrew's proposals here.

"A director must live with the fact that his work will be called to judgment by someone who has never seen a film of Murnau's." - François Truffaut

Twitter.
Letterboxd.

Reviews and essays at Three Brothers Film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we discussed this back when we were deciding on a theme, but isn't comedy often a very personal and cultural taste?  In other words, taste in comedy often reflects one's own cultural and experiences, which in turn influence what we find funny.

 

It seems very possible that the reason this list is full of so many popular familiar titles is simply because we chose comedy as a theme.  As a thought experiment, ask yourself what your favorite comedies are (without the extra "divine" qualification) and see how many of those are obscure foreign titles versus how many are popular and well known.

 

 

Regarding grouping the list by auteurs, like Jeremy, if I had known we would only be allowed one film per director, I would have voted quite differently to try to get different films ahead of others.  It seems to me that a film list is different than a list of directors or actors.  Although I might put one film ahead of another, that doesn't mean I would overall put that auteur ahead of another.  Although, I do like the idea of doing a top 25 list of auteurs.  All of our lists don't have to be of films, do they?

Edited by Evan C

"Anyway, in general I love tragic artists, especially classical ones."

"Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning."

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice, Nick, that you're not strictly grouping them by director, but by actor as well (i.e. tying Kubrick's Strangelove to Ashby's Being There). While there's a case to be made for certain actors functioning as auteurs in their own right, if we were to go this route, I'd prefer to stick with just directors for clarity's sake.

 

I can see why you would want to do that.  It may be worthwhile to try several approaches before settling.  As I see it, Peter Sellers is indispensable as a comic genius, even though he was not a director of films. He is an equal auteur in my eyes, as say, Billy Wilder. The only time this would be an issue is if there was a double-entry (The Life Aquatic, with both Bill Murray and Wes Anderson). 

 

BTW, I apologize for not knowing that there were more than one tier, and having my tone a few pages back dictate this.  I appreciate those of you considering this suggestion, even if you just go by directors (though I would hope it would be directors/screenwriters then). 

Edited by Nick Alexander

Nick Alexander

Keynote, Worship Leader, Comedian, Parodyist

Host of the Prayer Meeting Podcast - your virtual worship oasis. (Subscribe)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's just say that, not being one of the top 17, one of my object lessons (that I would consider relevant even if my post count was under 1,000) is that I ranked some films as 3s that I should have ranked as 1s.

 

In future voting, I plan to change my voting strategy accordingly.  If we were to follow option 2, I think most of us would vote differently than we voted the first time now that we've seen the results.

 

This is partly why I missed the vote. I invested far more time in doing a "pre-vote" before actually voting to more accurately gauge my thoughts on the films I had seen on the list (I had not seen 10). As a result, 1s and 2s were far more prominent this time around. 

 

I am coming around to SDG's overall point regarding this perhaps just being an area where: A. We are not as invested and B. The range of choices are smaller. I suppose it is the case that the final vote is an adequate representation of what was nominated

"...the vivid crossing of borders between film and theology may save the film from the banality of cinema and festival business, and it may also save the church from the deep sleep of the habitual and the always known."

(Hans Werner Dannowski)

Filmwell | Twitter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait. To try out Nick's 5th way, we don't need to write a new algorithm or do any new calculations, and it won't take any time. All we need is the full list, and we can go through by hand and quickly strike out any second or third contributions from a given auteur.

I appreciate your caveat that we might have voted differently based on a one-film per auteur approach, but couldn't we at least see what a list following this rule would look like, and then decide?

I've asked Tyler, so we should get it soon.

Problems:

1 - As already acknowledged, everyone voted expecting directors like the Coen Brothers, Stillman, Allen, Anderson, to get more than one film. (Regulating winning films into a "see also" category could be very dismissive towards someone's favorite "divine comedy".)

2 - There is a considerably big difference between a "Top 25 Divine Comedies" and a "Top 25 Comedy Auteurs" list. If that was what we were going to do, I'd expect that the entire nomination process would have been very different.

3 - In the spirit of this list, ranking it in terms of "comedy auteurs" diminishes the spiritual element we were going for even more. Are we really going to try to write that there is a list of comedy auteurs who are better at dealing with spiritual themes than others? Or that they just randomly happened to star in or direct in comedies that dealt with spirituality.

4 - Is Pixar a "comedy auteur"?

5 - What is a "comedy auteur"?

6 - What is a "divine comedy auteur"?

7 - Are actors "comedy auteurs" or only directors?

8 - None of these questions have been discussed over what has been a careful deliberative process of months. Springing this discussion on us now would be forcing everyone (who is paying attention to the board at the right time) to consider a serious change to the list in a very short amount of time.

Remember, I'm positing these objections as one member who is not satisfied with the results. I am almost completely sure that I would personally prefer the results from doing all this to the results we have now. But, trying to think objectively, I don't really think it would be fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe for future lists we should change the rules regarding eligibility.  3 films per director might be fine for a list of 100 films, but for a list of 25, maybe we should limit ourselves to 2 films per director and three per studio (for Pixar and Studio Ghibli).
 
However, I don't like going back and rewriting the rules to change our current list.  That seems like it too heavily favors those of us who regularly participate in the threads (and who are online right now).  It can be time consuming to read all the way through these threads if you don't see them until they're six pages long.  Some of our members vote without frequent participation in these threads.
 

Problems:
1 - As already acknowledged, everyone voted expecting directors like the Coen Brothers, Stillman, Allen, Anderson, to get more than one film. (Regulating winning films into a "see also" category could be very dismissive towards someone's favorite "divine comedy".)
2 - There is a considerably big difference between a "Top 25 Divine Comedies" and a "Top 25 Comedy Auteurs" list. If that was what we were going to do, I'd expect that the entire nomination process would have been very different.
3 - In the spirit of this list, ranking it in terms of "comedy auteurs" diminishes the spiritual element we were going for even more. Are we really going to try to write that there is a list of comedy auteurs who are better at dealing with spiritual themes than others? Or that they just randomly happened to star in or direct in comedies that dealt with spirituality

Yes, I agree.

Edited by Evan C

"Anyway, in general I love tragic artists, especially classical ones."

"Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning."

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, I'm positing these objections as one member who is not satisfied with the results. I am almost completely sure that I would personally prefer the results from doing all this to the results we have now. But, trying to think objectively, I don't really think it would be fair.

 

I can appreciate that, and if a revised list produced by disallowing multiple entries by a single auteur is objectionable to anyone who likes the current list, I wouldn't want to impose a new list in place of the current list over anyone's wishes. So far, though, I have no reason to think that anyone who has contributed to this discussion would actually object to modifying the list along the lines Nick has suggested. So I'm not sure who the new list would be "unfair" to.

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn it.  You guys are dividing me in half.

 

My subjective self would greatly prefer different and more diverse results than the results we have.

 

My objective self strongly objects to this on the grounds that "Top 25 Divine Comedies" is very very different from a "Top 25 Comedy Auteurs," and that changing it now in what would need to be a matter of days is pulling a switch that anyone who invested in the process two months ago will miss if they are too busy to contribute to the conversation in the next week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 - Is Pixar a "comedy auteur"?

5 - What is a "comedy auteur"?

6 - What is a "divine comedy auteur"?

7 - Are actors "comedy auteurs" or only directors?

 

For the purposes of modifying this specific list, I agree with Ryan that only multiple entries from a specific director be disallowed.

 

However, this leads to a conundrum, at least for me, around Pixar, since the only directorial overlap is Andrew Stanton, who co-directed Finding Nemo (#12) and directed Wall-E -- the one Pixar I feel most strongly reflects the "Divine Comedies" theme! 

 

I could argue for including both on the grounds that Stanton was only co-director (with Lee Unkrich), but that would mean keeping all four Pixars. Wall-E is the third of our four Pixars, so I see no way to a) cut back on directorial overlap, b.) reduce the number of Pixars and c) keep Wall-E.

 

So, hm.

Edited by SDG

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problems:

1 - As already acknowledged, everyone voted expecting directors like the Coen Brothers, Stillman, Allen, Anderson, to get more than one film. (Regulating winning films into a "see also" category could be very dismissive towards someone's favorite "divine comedy".)

I don't think so. The key thing to remember is that a comedy auteur is the driving force for the joke, the film being defined as the comedy it is. In some cases, it's the star (Bill Murray and Peter Sellers). Others, it's the collaborative screenplay (Harold Ramis, Christopher Guest, John Lasseter); Others, it's the director.

 

2 - There is a considerably big difference between a "Top 25 Divine Comedies" and a "Top 25 Comedy Auteurs" list. If that was what we were going to do, I'd expect that the entire nomination process would have been very different.

Indeed, but the resulting list will still be ranked in the order of the top films. According to the list as it stands, The Truman Show, Lars and the Real Girl, and Punch-Drunk Love stand alone, and that's fine by me.

 

3 - In the spirit of this list, ranking it in terms of "comedy auteurs" diminishes the spiritual element we were going for even more. Are we really going to try to write that there is a list of comedy auteurs who are better at dealing with spiritual themes than others? Or that they just randomly happened to star in or direct in comedies that dealt with spirituality.

I disagree. Charlie Chaplin's spirit on "The Great Dictator" is exactly the same as that of "City Lights" and "Modern Times." Wes Anderson's quirkiness, Woody Allen's unique voice, John Lasseter's creative process--these are all unique distinguishing characteristics in every one of the films they have. These unique distinguishing characteristics is the root of spirituality.

 

4 - Is Pixar a "comedy auteur"?

John Lasseter is. And he crafted a studio whose process for crafting quality films has its own distinct voice.

 

5 - What is a "comedy auteur"?

The driving force for what makes the film a comedy; often the film's moral center.

 

6 - What is a "divine comedy auteur"?

In this case, somebody who wrestles with God, morality, or eternal questions, and having the mess spill out in a crazy world.

 

7 - Are actors "comedy auteurs" or only directors?

Whoever it is that happens to be the comic driving force for that film.

 

8 - None of these questions have been discussed over what has been a careful deliberative process of months. Springing this discussion on us now would be forcing everyone (who is paying attention to the board at the right time) to consider a serious change to the list in a very short amount of time.

We all voted for the best films, and this is entirely fair. What I am proposing is to reduce the repetition of the same type of joke, and to add much-needed diversity to the list, using the votes already given.

 

ETA:  In case you didn't see it, here is the preliminary list that I had crafted. 

Edited by Nick Alexander

Nick Alexander

Keynote, Worship Leader, Comedian, Parodyist

Host of the Prayer Meeting Podcast - your virtual worship oasis. (Subscribe)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In haste before I leave for work: it would be crashingly absurd to allow only one or two films from the Coens, Anderson, etc., and then allow four Pixars. Whether Peter Sellers is the "auteur" of Dr. Strangelove may be debatable, but the Pixar case is absolutely clear. If we apply last-minute changes to the eligibility rules, we also have to apply common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 - Is Pixar a "comedy auteur"?

John Lasseter is. And he crafted a studio whose process for crafting quality films has its own distinct voice.

8 - None of these questions have been discussed over what has been a careful deliberative process of months. Springing this discussion on us now would be forcing everyone (who is paying attention to the board at the right time) to consider a serious change to the list in a very short amount of time.

We all voted for the best films, and this is entirely fair. What I am proposing is to reduce the repetition of the same type of joke, and to add much-needed diversity to the list, using the votes already given.

However, I resist the idea that what I value about Wall-E for this list is in any way, shape or form present in the other Pixars, and I would not be happy eliminating it on the theory that all Pixars reflect a single authorial voice.

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn it.  You guys are dividing me in half.

 

My subjective self would greatly prefer different and more diverse results than the results we have.

 

Anyone who has ever been in a position of authority can empathize. As a teacher, I get and honor that impulse towards fairness and how fierce it is. The older I get though, the more I realize that no system is fair to everyone and that sometimes the best you can do is avoid the most obvious injustices. Plus, too, there is always the opportunity costs of not changing. It can be disheartening when leaders/those in power are capricious, but it can be equally disheartening for others if you bring problems to the attention of those who are in power and they are unwilling to try to address them. Fairness is more about taking the concerns of all in mind--which you are doing--than it is about being slavishly consistent to the syllabus. 

The more that's at stake, the more reluctant one should be to deviate from the plan stated in advance. But what's at stake here? And for who? That's my way of saying that if you were put in a position of power, it is because someone trusted you to make the right call, not just to apply the rules handed down by someone else or that are self-imposed. It's great that you don't want to violate that trust, but don't be afraid of it either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In haste before I leave for work: it would be crashingly absurd to allow only one or two films from the Coens, Anderson, etc., and then allow four Pixars. Whether Peter Sellers is the "auteur" of Dr. Strangelove may be debatable, but the Pixar case is absolutely clear. If we apply last-minute changes to the eligibility rules, we also have to apply common sense.

Wall-E is different.

 

It is not like anything else not only in Pixar's oeuvre, but in American animation in general.

 

And what makes it unique is precisely what makes it uniquely applicable to "Divine Comedies": existential wonder and awe; new life mediated by a Beatrice figure.

Edited by SDG

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My objective self strongly objects to this on the grounds that "Top 25 Divine Comedies" is very very different from a "Top 25 Comedy Auteurs," and that changing it now in what would need to be a matter of days is pulling a switch that anyone who invested in the process two months ago will miss if they are too busy to contribute to the conversation in the next week.

The other problem with changing to "Top 25 Comedy Auteurs" is that many great comic talents (Ernst Lubitsch, the Marx Brothers, Mel Brooks) were overlooked because their comedies are not really spiritual, but they would belong on a "Top 25 Comedy Auteurs" list.  And a "Top 25 Divine Comedy Auteurs" list seems way too subjective to me.  Just because a director or actor made one spiritual comedy, it does not mean the rest of their output qualifies.

 

Also, is Kubrick or Sellers the primary comic force behind Dr. Strangelove?  I think both are equally, and it would be wrong to group it with other Sellers films that are very, very different from it.

 

I could argue for including both on the grounds that Stanton was only co-director (with Lee Unkrich), but that would mean keeping all four Pixars. Wall-E is the third of our four Pixars, so I see no way to a) cut back on directorial overlap, b.) reduce the number of Pixars and c) keep Wall-E.

 

So, hm.

I can't imagine this list without WALL-E.

Edited by Evan C

"Anyway, in general I love tragic artists, especially classical ones."

"Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning."

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,
 
It's been requested that I give you all the full list in ranked order. I apologize for the lack of italics. Cheers, TM
 
TOP 25
Groundhog Day (1993) 
The Truman Show (1998) 
A Serious Man (2009)
City Lights (1931)
Moonrise Kingdom (2012) 
Modern Times (1936) 
Sullivan's Travels (1941) 
Life of Brian (1979) 
Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Lars and the Real Girl (2007) 
Up (2009)
Finding Nemo (2003)
Metropolitan (1990) 
Wall-E (2008)
O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000) 
Ratatouille (2007) 
The Fisher King (1991) 
Fiddler on the Roof (1971) 
The Big Lebowski (1998) 
The Great Dictator (1940) 
Brazil (1985) 
Punch-Drunk Love (2002) 
The Princess Bride (1987) 
Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) 
The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985) 
 
5 RUNNERS-UP
Fargo (1996) 
Amélie (2001) 
Midnight in Paris (2011) 
The Last Days of Disco (1998)
Being There (1979) 
 
THE REST IN ORDER
Harold and Maude (1971) 
The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) 
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) 
Network (1976) 
Three Colors: White (1994) 
The Muppet Movie (1979) 
Toy Story 2 (1999)
The Apartment (1960)
Back to the Future (1985) 
Duck Soup (1933)
The Station Agent (2003) 
Raising Arizona (1987) 
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004) 
About a Boy (2002) 
Barton Fink (1991) 
The Graduate (1967) 
Frances Ha (2012) 
Big Fish (2003) 
Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) 
Young Frankenstein (1979) 
The Hudsucker Proxy (1994) 
Playtime (1967) 
Harvey (1950) 
Joe Versus the Volcano (1990) 
Life is Beautiful (1997) 
Little Miss Sunshine (2006) 
The Gods Must Be Crazy (1980) 
Midnight Run (1988) 
Much Ado About Nothing (1993) 
The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988)
Three Kings (1999)
In Bruges (2008)
Say Anything (1989) 
Ruby Sparks (2012) 
American Graffiti (1973) 
Planes, Trains & Automobiles (1987) 
Barcelona (1994) 
Four Lions (2010) 
Zelig (1993) 
A Night at the Opera (1935) 
Damsels in Distress (2011) 
The Emperor's New Groove (2000) 
The General (1926) 
Miracle on 34th Street (1947)
Blazing Saddles (1974) 
The Ruling Class (1972)
Wonder Boys (2000)
Beetlejuice (1988) 
Strictly Ballroom (1992) 
Sideways (2004) 
The Rules of the Game (1939) 
Manhattan (1979) 
Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (1990)
Mash (1970) 
Time Bandits (1981) 
Chimes at Midnight (1965) 
The Philadelphia Story (1940) 
Return to Me (2000) 
Adam's Apples (2005) 
The Court Jester (1955) 
Bernie (2011) 
The Informant! (2009) 
Thank You For Smoking (2005) 
You Can't Take It With You (1938) 
Bull Durham (1988) 
Happy-Go-Lucky (2008)
Broken Flowers (2005) 
Some Like It Hot (1959)
A Room with a View (1985)
Stranger Than Fiction (2006) 
City Slickers (1991) 
Attack the Block (2011) 
Volver (2006) 
Bedazzled (1967) 
Zoolander (2001) 
Win Win (2011) 
Miracle at Morgan's Creek (1944) 
Ushpizin (2004) 
The Dish (2000) 
Local Hero (1983)
Moonstruck (1987)
Down By Law (1986) 
Waitress (2007) 
Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)
The Rabbi's Cat (2011)  
The Band's Visit (2007)
The Trip (2010) 
Heaven Can Wait (1943) 
Waking Ned Devine (1998) 
Henry Fool (1997) 
Mon Oncle (1958)
Italian for Beginners (2000) 
Death at a Funeral (2007) 
Lost in America (1985) 
Holiday (1938)
The Unbelievable Truth (1989) 
Buffalo '66 (1998)
Tampopo (1986) 
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1935) 
The Frisco Kid (1979) 
The Taste of Tea (2004) 
Mary and Max (2009) 
Trouble in Paradise (1932) 
Underground (1995)
Stardust (2007) 
Ninotchka (1979) 
Amarcord (1973) 
The Bucket List (2007) 
Alice (1990) 
Marley & Me (2008) 
Ghost Town (2008)
Last Holiday (1950) 
Hobson's Choice (1954) 
Ball of Fire (1941) 
Il Mostro (1994) 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can somebody run a couple iterations for us?

 

What happens if we impose a two-films-per-director rule?

 

What about a one-film-per-director?


I'd do it but I'm busy at work.

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...