Jump to content
kenmorefield

Top 100 for 2020 -- Organization

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Darren H said:

Ken, I imagined it as a blind submission. "If you want to be part of the nomination process, you must submit a top 25 to Darren Hughes by April 1. He will then compile the submissions, remove duplicates, and post the list of nominees for general discussion." I'd want it blind so that no one is able to nominate strategically. Maybe it's because my day job consists of staring at huge spreadsheets, but I'm not worried about too many submissions. Just the opposite, actually. 

Assuming we're all acting in good faith--that we're all sincerely naming 25 films that we believe are of real significance--there's going to be a lot of overlap. Then the finer points will shake out in the voting. And by "finer points" I mean, does The Kid With a Bike earn the top Dardenne slot (as it should) or does that honor go to The Son?

Darren, is that a volunteer to compile the submission and post the lists of general nominees? Or were you speaking hypothetically? 

I'm not sure I necessarily agree that there will be a lot of overlap even if acting in good faith. I mean "of all time" is a long time and 25 is...pretty broad. But I'm terrible at predictions, so I don't really know. 

I do rather like the notion though of having a set deadline to submit nominee lists because then we know exactly how many voters we have in the dicussion/voting stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blind submissions makes sense to me. Would the Top 25 submissions be ranked or unranked lists? Regarding overlap, I think we could look at this past year's top 10 lists of 2019—how much overlap is there, and how much diversity? It's just for one year, but there are many outliers and idiosyncrasies, as well as many films common to our lists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Darren H said:

Then the finer points will shake out in the voting. And by "finer points" I mean, does The Kid With a Bike earn the top Dardenne slot (as it should) or does that honor go to The Son?

A worthy debate to have!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy to collect and compile lists, Ken. I'm about to make my first trip to the Berlinale (!), so I won't be around here much from 2/19-2/28, but if we go with this strategy, I'll start a new thread after I get back with submission guidelines. I'm imagining that thread also being a kind of statement of purpose--spelling out the goal of the list, reminding voters that this will be the latest iteration, and encouraging them to revisit the old lists and watch as many of the top-ranked films as possible.

If the goal is to create a Top 100, then having a big pool of options wouldn't be so bad, right? Worst case scenario, we have to vote on 250 films and wouldn't that be exciting to see how the final results shake out?

> I do rather like the notion though of having a set deadline to submit nominee lists because then we know exactly how many voters we have in the dicussion/voting stage.

Yeah, that's another benefit of this approach. It will require voters to have some skin in the game. Want to vote? Then you have to be part of the nomination process.

> Would the Top 25 submissions be ranked or unranked lists?

For the sake of determing our pool of nominees, ranking shouldn't matter because we'll rank them collectively with our votes. But in announcing the list, we could also potentially publish the ranked Top 25s of each voter.

> Regarding overlap, I think we could look at this past year's top 10 lists of 2019—how much overlap is there, and how much diversity?

That's not quite a perfect analogy because the Top 100 is, in a way, our "canon." We've spent a lot of years watching and discussing Tarkovsky, Bergman, Dreyer, Bresson, etc. Those filmmakers don't mean as much to me today as they did 15 years ago, but I can't imagine making a Top 25 without them on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds good to me, and there appears to be support for the idea. Let's give it another day or so for any last minute questions or objections and then unless you hear otherwise to start that process after you get back from Berlin. (Aside -- how exciting. I am happy for you that you get to do that.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the anthology idea and would be willing to contribute is needed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Darren's top 25 lists is a fantastic idea, provided the submissions are blind--otherwise there's no way to prevent strategic nominations after you've seen someone else's list. I think there's a small possibility some essential films might slip through the cracks, but provided enough people submit, that hopefully shouldn't happen.

I'm in favor of a 3 films per director limit for the final top 100, but should there also be that limit on our lists, or should we leave that open to each voter?


"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> I think there's a small possibility some essential films might slip through the cracks, but provided enough people submit, that hopefully shouldn't happen.

Before voting begins, we could compare our new list of nominees to the old list and identify any of the top 25? top 50? films from the last list that were overlooked.

I'm in favor of a 3 films per director limit for the final top 100, but should there also be that limit on our lists, or should we leave that open to each voter?

I tend to think voters should be free to nominate as many films as they want by a single director, but I'm open to limits. Should we nail down criteria for individual top 25s?  This is my understanding rom earlier discussions, but this is all open for discussion:

- Guiding principle for nominations (#1). From SDG's 2011 write-up: Originally called the Arts & Faith “Top 100 Spiritually Significant Films,” the list is not confined to explicitly religious subjects, but spiritual and moral concerns are a unifying principle. The list honors films not simply for technical achievement or historical importance, but because they reflect profoundly on the mystery of humanity, and often because they have played some significant role in the personal journeys of the voting members. 

- Guiding principle for nominations (#2). From Joel's post on page 2 of this thread: These are films which may have affected and changed us, guided us and challenged us, enriched us and enlightened us, expanded our spiritual/moral/personal/existential imaginations, made us more aware. And such contemplation and appreciation is perhaps akin to a spiritual practice or discipline in the vein of Thomas Merton or mystical theologians, where contemplatio is to "gaze" at the invisible transcendent presence and be more aware its reality.

- Only individual films are eligible. Before Sunset is eligible, Before Trilogy is not.

- Films made for or distributed via television and streaming services are eligible; television and streaming series are not.

- Films of any length are eligible. (I'm open to limiting this to standard feature length [50-250 minutes], but selfishly I can think of at least one short I'd like to nominate.)

- Films from any year are eligible. (Is there any particular reason to exclude, say, A Hidden Life just because it came out this year?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darren H said:

> I think there's a small possibility some essential films might slip through the cracks, but provided enough people submit, that hopefully shouldn't happen.

Before voting begins, we could compare our new list of nominees to the old list and identify any of the top 25? top 50? films from the last list that were overlooked.

I'm in favor of a 3 films per director limit for the final top 100, but should there also be that limit on our lists, or should we leave that open to each voter?

I tend to think voters should be free to nominate as many films as they want by a single director, but I'm open to limits. Should we nail down criteria for individual top 25s?  This is my understanding rom earlier discussions, but this is all open for discussion:

 

Thank you, D, for keeping a summary going. Makes it easier to follow where we are at as addtional voices join conversation.

I am against the 3 film limit, but ambivalently so. I mean, given the new nomination format, if I put all seventeen Bresson films on my list, would all make Top 100? That being said, I would recommend deferring that decision until we see how many people submit their Top 25 lists and how many overall nominees there are. 

I may be perverse, but in regards to essential films slipping through the cracks, I guess the thing that most appeals to me out of doing a new list with a smaller group of voters is precisely that there might be some shake up.

It is probably worth my repeating that my preferences (unless otherwise stated) are meant to be preferences, not mandates. I realize as some theoretical point in these sort of processes, someone (i.e. me) may have to make a final decision but for over a year or so now, I've yet to see a consensus not emerge. I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop, but I think the combination of traffic reduction, aging and mellowing, has made for smooth sailing so far (knock on wood).

P.S. I realize that I am inherently suspicious of such claims that we can fix or adjust process if problems emerge, because in academia I hear them all the time and don't experience them as being sincere or true. But we have a smaller group and aren't beholden to client base or accreditation or whatever, so we really can adjust on the fly if we get 1/2 way through and find something isn't working. I wouldn't do that unilaterally, but I'm not allergic to doing so if there is a consensus that something isn't working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aging and mellowing, has made for smooth sailing so far

It's funny you say that. It occurred to me as I was responding to Andrew's question about the Dardennes that if he'd mentioned 15 years ago that he was put off by their Bressonian gestures I absolutely would've spent three hours trying to prove him wrong!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Darren H said:

aging and mellowing, has made for smooth sailing so far

It's funny you say that. It occurred to me as I was responding to Andrew's question about the Dardennes that if he'd mentioned 15 years ago that he was put off by their Bressonian gestures I absolutely would've spent three hours trying to prove him wrong!

Well he is wrong, but... image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Darren H said:

> I think there's a small possibility some essential films might slip through the cracks, but provided enough people submit, that hopefully shouldn't happen.

Before voting begins, we could compare our new list of nominees to the old list and identify any of the top 25? top 50? films from the last list that were overlooked.

I'm in favor of a 3 films per director limit for the final top 100, but should there also be that limit on our lists, or should we leave that open to each voter?

I tend to think voters should be free to nominate as many films as they want by a single director, but I'm open to limits. Should we nail down criteria for individual top 25s?  This is my understanding rom earlier discussions, but this is all open for discussion:

- Guiding principle for nominations (#1). From SDG's 2011 write-up: Originally called the Arts & Faith “Top 100 Spiritually Significant Films,” the list is not confined to explicitly religious subjects, but spiritual and moral concerns are a unifying principle. The list honors films not simply for technical achievement or historical importance, but because they reflect profoundly on the mystery of humanity, and often because they have played some significant role in the personal journeys of the voting members. 

- Guiding principle for nominations (#2). From Joel's post on page 2 of this thread: These are films which may have affected and changed us, guided us and challenged us, enriched us and enlightened us, expanded our spiritual/moral/personal/existential imaginations, made us more aware. And such contemplation and appreciation is perhaps akin to a spiritual practice or discipline in the vein of Thomas Merton or mystical theologians, where contemplatio is to "gaze" at the invisible transcendent presence and be more aware its reality.

- Only individual films are eligible. Before Sunset is eligible, Before Trilogy is not.

- Films made for or distributed via television and streaming services are eligible; television and streaming series are not.

- Films of any length are eligible. (I'm open to limiting this to standard feature length [50-250 minutes], but selfishly I can think of at least one short I'd like to nominate.)

- Films from any year are eligible. (Is there any particular reason to exclude, say, A Hidden Life just because it came out this year?)

I think I can say that I agree with all of these parameters, without qualification. I like the idea of having fairly wide open boundaries for the initial individual 25 lists, then to narrow those boundaries more in the final voting/ranking for the top 100.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Darren H said:

aging and mellowing, has made for smooth sailing so far

It's funny you say that. It occurred to me as I was responding to Andrew's question about the Dardennes that if he'd mentioned 15 years ago that he was put off by their Bressonian gestures I absolutely would've spent three hours trying to prove him wrong!

 

10 hours ago, kenmorefield said:

Well he is wrong, but... image.png

Hahahaha!  Thanks for giving me a laugh out loud moment first thing in the morning... 


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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we really can adjust on the fly if we get 1/2 way through and find something isn't working. I wouldn't do that unilaterally, but I'm not allergic to doing so if there is a consensus that something isn't working.

That's my attitude too. I can imagine us looking at the long list of nominees and saying, "None of us mentioned Au Hasard Balthazar. Interesting. Should it and these ten other films be grandfathered in for consideration?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2020 at 9:51 AM, kenmorefield said:

How about this? (Just spitballing...)

1) We open nominations March 1. 

2) Nominations consists of submitting a list of 25 films by  April 1. 

3) If there are less than 20 participants, each person gets to select two films from their list to be on the final 100 (but not their rank). If there are more than 20 participants (unlikely but possible) each participant gets to select 1 film to be on the final list
4) From April 1-15 we vote on the nominated films (Likert scale 1-5)

5) From April 16-30 we have an optional second vote to rank the top 25 by score. 

6) From May 1-10 we collect blurbs.

7) Post list in Mid-May (which is right around graduation time). 

I like the idea of submitting a Top 25 list for nominations a lot.

This timeline works for me. A couple considerations:

I know I won't need a full month to come up with a list of 25 films. Do we want to make the deadline late March sometime so that the nominated films list/ballot can actually be ready to go on April 1? 

I am not sure 2 weeks each is quite enough time for the two rounds of voting. I will want to be watching or rewatching some of those films at both phases, and that takes time. But I'll do what I can in April if this timeline is what works best for folks.

I like Ken's third step of getting to pick one film per person to be on the list. But what if a lot of people come out of the woodwork and we end up with 50 idiosyncratic picks? This isn't likely, I know, and there might be some overlap of people's top picks, but I think maybe need some more discussion of the process on this one. Do we want a list that has this feature? I might propose allowing one film per person to be assured a place on the Top 100 if fewer than 20 people submit nominating lists, but that if more than 20 submit, then the list will be determined solely through voting. 

19 hours ago, Darren H said:

> I think there's a small possibility some essential films might slip through the cracks, but provided enough people submit, that hopefully shouldn't happen.

Before voting begins, we could compare our new list of nominees to the old list and identify any of the top 25? top 50? films from the last list that were overlooked.

 

5 hours ago, Darren H said:

we really can adjust on the fly if we get 1/2 way through and find something isn't working. I wouldn't do that unilaterally, but I'm not allergic to doing so if there is a consensus that something isn't working.

That's my attitude too. I can imagine us looking at the long list of nominees and saying, "None of us mentioned Au Hasard Balthazar. Interesting. Should it and these ten other films be grandfathered in for consideration?"

I agree that this is a potential problem with the method of submitting a Top 25 list, and like Ken I'm a little wary of revising the plan on the fly. There are lot of films on the 2011 Top 100 that would absolutely be in my own (hypothetical) top 100 all time films list. But not my top 25. Yet I'd still love to see them on another Top 100.

It's for this reason that I think we should grandfather some films into the nominations. It would ensure that those essential films get consideration, and it would free us up to nominate fresh films. There will still be plenty of overlap from nominated films, even from the past 10 years, I'm sure.  I, for one, do not mind voting 1-5 on a list of a few hundred films. 

For grandfathering, one option would be to grandfather the entire 2011 list of 100 films. But I think there is a better option. I think that those 34 films that have been on all 5 previous iterations of the A&F Top 100 should be automatically grandfathered in. That's what I propose. I found that list here in a write up by SDG: http://www.decentfilms.com/blog/2011-arts-faith-top-100

  1. Ordet (Carl Dreyer, 1955)
  2. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Carl Dreyer, 1927)
  3. The Decalogue (Krzysztof Kieślowski, 1989)
  4. The Son (Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, 2002)
  5. Au Hasard Balthazar (Robert Bresson, 1966)
  6. The Gospel According to Matthew (Pier Paolo Pasolini, 1964)
  7. Babette’s Feast (Gabriel Axel, 1987)
  8. Andrei Rublev (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1966)
  9. Diary of a Country Priest (Robert Bresson, 1951)
  10. Ikiru (Akira Kurosawa, 1952)
  11. The Seventh Seal (Ingmar Bergman, 1957)
  12. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (F. W. Murnau, 1927)
  13. Three Colors Trilogy (Krzysztof Kieślowski)
  14. Stalker (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1979)
  15. The Apostle (Robert Duvall, 1997)
  16. Man for All Seasons (Fred Zinnemann, 1966)
  17. La Promesse (Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, 1996)
  18. A Man Escaped (Robert Bresson, 1956)
  19. Magnolia (Paul Thomas Anderson, 1999)
  20. The Mirror (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1979)
  21. Wild Strawberries (1957, Ingmar Bergman)
  22. Wings of Desire (Wim Wenders, 1987)
  23. Day of Wrath (Carl Dreyer, 1943)
  24. Tender Mercies (Bruce Beresford, 1987)
  25. Tokyo Story (Yasujirô Ozu, 1953)
  26. Chariots of Fire (Hugh Hudson, 1981)
  27. Jesus of Montreal (Denys Arcand, 1989)
  28. It’s A Wonderful Life (Frank Capra, 1946)
  29. My Night at Maud’s (Éric Rohmer)
  30. The Straight Story (David Lynch, 1999)
  31. Ponette (Jacques Doillon, 1999)
  32. Yi Yi: A One and a Two (Edward Yang, 2000)
  33. Bicycle Thieves (Vittorio De Sica, 1948)
  34. Close-Up (Abbas Kiarostami, 1990)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of comments:

- I prefer revising on the fly to grandfathering in films.  Building from scratch just seems more fun and adventurous to me.

- I'll second Evan's statement from yesterday that submissions ought to be blind.

- Like Rob, I wouldn't object to modifying the schedule, to allow more time to view nominated films.  Maybe a March 20 deadline for list submission, and an April 15 voting deadline?  


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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andrew said:

A couple of comments:

- I prefer revising on the fly to grandfathering in films.  Building from scratch just seems more fun and adventurous to me.

- I'll second Evan's statement from yesterday that submissions ought to be blind.

- Like Rob, I wouldn't object to modifying the schedule, to allow more time to view nominated films.  Maybe a March 20 deadline for list submission, and an April 15 voting deadline?  

One thought that occurred to me was something like the Veterans Committee in Hall of Fame Voting (for football or baseball). There job is to vote on players no longer eligible to be on the active ballot or that they felt were overlooked by active voters. 

Perhaps we could have something similar? I'm thinking of a Veteran's committee of 3-5 people who have been around for awhile (or involved with other lists) who are tasked with making a smaller list (10?) of films that are grandfathered in. Not sure if I mean to be additionally nominated or to be grandfathered into the final list. 

I very much like the idea of giving each voter a golden ticket (one film they can put on the final list), though, as Rob rightly points out, that may not be possible if voter turnout is higher than expected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rob Z said:

 

For grandfathering, one option would be to grandfather the entire 2011 list of 100 films. But I think there is a better option. I think that those 34 films that have been on all 5 previous iterations of the A&F Top 100 should be automatically grandfathered in. That's what I propose. I found that list here in a write up by SDG: http://www.decentfilms.com/blog/2011-arts-faith-top-100

  1. Ordet (Carl Dreyer, 1955)
  2. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Carl Dreyer, 1927)
  3. The Decalogue (Krzysztof Kieślowski, 1989)
  4. The Son (Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, 2002)
  5. Au Hasard Balthazar (Robert Bresson, 1966)
  6. The Gospel According to Matthew (Pier Paolo Pasolini, 1964)
  7. Babette’s Feast (Gabriel Axel, 1987)
  8. Andrei Rublev (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1966)
  9. Diary of a Country Priest (Robert Bresson, 1951)
  10. Ikiru (Akira Kurosawa, 1952)
  11. The Seventh Seal (Ingmar Bergman, 1957)
  12. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (F. W. Murnau, 1927)
  13. Three Colors Trilogy (Krzysztof Kieślowski)
  14. Stalker (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1979)
  15. The Apostle (Robert Duvall, 1997)
  16. Man for All Seasons (Fred Zinnemann, 1966)
  17. La Promesse (Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, 1996)
  18. A Man Escaped (Robert Bresson, 1956)
  19. Magnolia (Paul Thomas Anderson, 1999)
  20. The Mirror (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1979)
  21. Wild Strawberries (1957, Ingmar Bergman)
  22. Wings of Desire (Wim Wenders, 1987)
  23. Day of Wrath (Carl Dreyer, 1943)
  24. Tender Mercies (Bruce Beresford, 1987)
  25. Tokyo Story (Yasujirô Ozu, 1953)
  26. Chariots of Fire (Hugh Hudson, 1981)
  27. Jesus of Montreal (Denys Arcand, 1989)
  28. It’s A Wonderful Life (Frank Capra, 1946)
  29. My Night at Maud’s (Éric Rohmer)
  30. The Straight Story (David Lynch, 1999)
  31. Ponette (Jacques Doillon, 1999)
  32. Yi Yi: A One and a Two (Edward Yang, 2000)
  33. Bicycle Thieves (Vittorio De Sica, 1948)
  34. Close-Up (Abbas Kiarostami, 1990)

Well...we know the Three Color Trilogy would be grandtatherd since we decided to only do individual films and not series. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kenmorefield said:

One thought that occurred to me was something like the Veterans Committee in Hall of Fame Voting (for football or baseball). There job is to vote on players no longer eligible to be on the active ballot or that they felt were overlooked by active voters. 

Perhaps we could have something similar? I'm thinking of a Veteran's committee of 3-5 people who have been around for awhile (or involved with other lists) who are tasked with making a smaller list (10?) of films that are grandfathered in. Not sure if I mean to be additionally nominated or to be grandfathered into the final list. 

I dunno, unless folks come out of the woodwork with lists, the number of voices/opinions seems manageable; so I'd just as soon keep it one person/one vote.  Likewise, I'd prefer to see any missed films be grandfathered into the voting, not the final list.

1 hour ago, kenmorefield said:

Well...we know the Three Color Trilogy would be grandfathered since we decided to only do individual films and not series. 

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with Decalogue and Three Colors being the two exceptions to this rule.


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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kenmorefield said:

Well...we know the Three Color Trilogy would be grandfathered since we decided to only do individual films and not series. 

I'd be much more open to grandfathering in Dekalog than Three Colors, if we were going to go that route.

I also like the idea of a "golden ticket" film we can include on the final list, but that might also depend on how many people vote (i.e. if 30 people voted, and thus 30 "golden ticket" films were included, would that final list be a reflection of our *community* if nearly 1/3 of the films were individual choices/preferences?). Or would the "golden ticket" essentially be an Honorable Mentions list, films separate from the final Top 100 but still worth including?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of the "golden ticket," but I think it only works if 20 people at the absolute most participate, and even then I think that's kind of stretching it.


"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Evan C said:

I like the idea of the "golden ticket," but I think it only works if 20 people at the absolute most participate, and even then I think that's kind of stretching it.

 

On 2/19/2020 at 11:43 PM, Joel Mayward said:

Or would the "golden ticket" essentially be an Honorable Mentions list, films separate from the final Top 100 but still worth including?

The more I mull it over, the more I think that the contents of the list itself should be determined through our voting and not through the "golden ticket" method. It appeals to me, too, but I think it's an unnecessary step that will indeed dilute the idea of this being a community list. Switching up the nominations process and having a second round of voting to rank the list (plus a few smaller changes) are good changes to the method of selection already, and I think the specifics of the golden ticket might make it too complicated. I do, however, strongly support the idea of an Honorable Mentions list, where each participant can name a spiritually significant or otherwise essential film that didn't make the Top 100. 

On 2/19/2020 at 11:43 PM, Joel Mayward said:

I'd be much more open to grandfathering in Dekalog than Three Colors, if we were going to go that route.

Yes, I think Dekalog is the one essential exception.

On 2/19/2020 at 2:11 PM, kenmorefield said:

One thought that occurred to me was something like the Veterans Committee in Hall of Fame Voting (for football or baseball). There job is to vote on players no longer eligible to be on the active ballot or that they felt were overlooked by active voters. 

Perhaps we could have something similar? I'm thinking of a Veteran's committee of 3-5 people who have been around for awhile (or involved with other lists) who are tasked with making a smaller list (10?) of films that are grandfathered in. Not sure if I mean to be additionally nominated or to be grandfathered into the final list. 

I guess if we're not going to do the grandfathering of a small number of essential films before the nominating of our top 25s, I'm not sure if we need something this formal. But there should be some period after the list of compiled nominations is posted but before a ballot for voting goes up so that people can indeed look and point out any important films like Balthazar that should get considered but might have just been people's #26 top film. I don't know if a committee is necessary, but whoever is doing things at that point (Darren? Ken? Joel?) could just add a few that people raise to the ballot.

On 2/19/2020 at 3:34 PM, Andrew said:

I'd prefer to see any missed films be grandfathered into the voting, not the final list.

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grandfathering in those 35 or so films into the nominees would certainly make my list easier to compile, because I'm already at 28 and struggling to decide which ones to cut. And I most likely left out a few films I'm going to want to include once I give the list some more thought.


"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am strongly against exceptions for Dekalog or Three Colors. 

Thus far I haven't heard any arguments for why these titles should be exempted from eligibility rules regarding TV or series v. individual films, only some suggestions that they should be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...