Jump to content
kenmorefield

Top 100 for 2020 -- Organization

Recommended Posts

I'm quite happy not making exceptions for Dekalog, Three Colors, or other trilogies/series (the Apu or Before trilogies, for example), and sticking with the guidelines Darren suggested in an above post. But I also would not be surprised if this approach will mean Dekalog in particular wouldn't end up on the final list at all, if individual episodes from Dekalog were nominated. This would be a significant shift from earlier iterations of the Top 100, where Dekalog was #2 (2010) and #4 (2011). Perhaps I'd be mistaken and there's a favorite individual section from Dekalog which would stand out in the nominations and voting. Again, I'm still not suggesting that we make an exception, only that we are aware of what that approach would entail for this new list. For me, I do view Dekalog as a whole rather than a series of individual films (and I think Kieslowski ultimately viewed it as such, though this is debatable), and I think its impact/significance is precisely in receiving the film as an epic whole, which is distinct from the trilogies considered or something like Twin Peaks: The Return. But I'm also quite willing to concede for the sake of a smoother list-making process. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find all the reasons Joel gives to be compelling arguments in favor of including Dekalog for consideration. I think it is an exception.

5 hours ago, Joel Mayward said:

This would be a significant shift from earlier iterations of the Top 100, where Dekalog was #2 (2010) and #4 (2011).

More on this in a minute, but I’d add that Dekalog was #7, #3, and #1 on the other previous lists (although the first list ultimately was released unranked). The fact that this is still an A&F Top 100 suggests that the film (or the "work") deserves consideration on the grounds of continuity. I agree we don't need continuity of method for its own sake, but that's not how I see this.

5 hours ago, Joel Mayward said:

I also would not be surprised if this approach will mean Dekalog in particular wouldn't end up on the final list at all, if individual episodes from Dekalog were nominated.

 

5 hours ago, Joel Mayward said:

Perhaps I'd be mistaken and there's a favorite individual section from Dekalog which would stand out in the nominations and voting.

My understanding is that Darren would be open to considering individual episodes as made-for-TV films but Ken is opposed to them on the grounds that they make up a television miniseries and so it shouldn't be eligible as a whole or in parts. Is that correct? I see both as legitimate ways of understanding Dekalog in reference to the proposed guidelines. There is ambiguity. I think of "The Man Who Planted Trees" as a "short" film, but IIRC it was produced under the aegis of the Canadian public television company, as were Back's other short films. I don't know it's release history, but there could seem to be some ambiguity about categorization if someone wanted to argue it. (I don't want to argue it. Maybe this isn't a helpful example. Take it or leave it.) And either way, I think there should be room for an exception.

5 hours ago, Joel Mayward said:

I do view Dekalog as a whole rather than a series of individual films (and I think Kieslowski ultimately viewed it as such, though this is debatable)

I do, too.

5 hours ago, Joel Mayward said:

I think its impact/significance is precisely in receiving the film as an epic whole, which is distinct from the trilogies considered or something like Twin Peaks: The Return

I think this is even more compelling as a reason. We talk about it as a whole along other films. So do many if not most other film institutions. The work has, in my understanding been received largely (though of course not exclusively) as a single work of film up to the present, including by Arts & Faith.

As to this being a significant departure from past lists, I probably just value the continuity more than others. That said, I have little attachment to any trilogies that have in the past been considered as individual units, although the fact that Three Colors was conceived as a single artistic work was a point made strongly 10 years ago in the prior discussions of Top 100 grandfathering. A Top 100 that contains or at least considered, say, Blue and/or Red instead of the trilogy isn’t missing anything as an Arts & Faith list in my book. But a list that doesn't even consider Dekalog is missing something. I think the previous lists are stronger as lists of great cinema for including Dekalog, stronger in their "spiritual significance" for including it, and stronger as Arts & Faith lists most especially. This is a cinematic work that is close to the heart of the identity of Arts & Faith as a film discourse community, which makes me believe it should be an exception to the proposed guidelines, which I otherwise support.

Let me try to articulate a deeper principle here. Are we trying to establish some good boundaries and then police them rigidly, or are we trying to make a list of films that reflect the core/identity of this forum and the cinematic works it values (reflected in those first two principles that Darren quoted). I think that the more flexible orientation to the "center" is just more helpful than a focus on the "boundaries." And as I said, I believe Dekalog is close to the heart of this community and the films it values. If you'll indulge in a few analogies, I think that a centering on Jesus (as Lord, Savior, Messiah, etc.) is what defines Christianity rather than policing the boundaries of the faith by making sure that certain things are believed or liturgical, behavioral, or other boxes checked. The center is what defines the faith for me, though of course arguments around the margins are worth having. What makes America the nation that it is? Is it it's borders, which must be rigidly bounded and even walled? Or is it its center, understood perhaps as principles articulated in its history and documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I for one say it's the latter. Nothing wrong with boundaries or rules or creeds, of course. We need them, but they're not the final, defining kernel. Continuity itself isn't the principle, but it's based on this deeper principle.

That's my argument for including Dekalog, but ultimately I agree with Andrew that issues where there isn't consensus should be decided democratically. Could we have a poll that had two choices: allow consideration of Dekalog or not?

(The only other work that I think maybe should be an exception is Jesus of Nazareth, but it's obviously not central to A&F and its lists the way Dekalog is.)

Another question that could be polled would be whether or not to grandfather those 34 films mentioned above into the nominated films list (or rather 36 films, since it sounds like consensus would be, in this case, to grandfather Blue, White, and Red into the nominations as separate entries).

Are there other issues to be polled where there is no consensus? Do we need more discussion?

Golden ticket stage (one film per person) if under 20 participants vs. an honorable mentions list (one film per participant)?

Number of films per director on final list (2? 3? 4? or no limit?)

Edited by Rob Z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm contradicting what I wrote earlier in the week, but the more I ponder it and read the back and forth here, the more I'm inclined to stick with films and exclude TV series or miniseries.  It would be fun to do a list of Top 25 in television, but including Six Feet Under, Deadwood (the full series or last year's made-for-TV movie), The Decalog, or Jesus of Nazareth in a Top 100 would muddy the waters.  I chose those four examples deliberately, because all four are most certainly spiritually significant.  (I can't comment on the artistic merits of the last one, since I haven't seen it since my childhood - complete with commercial breaks! - but the other three are as artful as many a film that's made previous Top 100s.)             


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

I am strongly against exceptions for Dekalog or Three Colors. 

Agree. Kieslowski expanded two episodes of Dekalog into feature films with new titles, so he clearly saw them as distinct formats. It would be easy enough to explain the change of criteria, and the consequences of that change, in the intro to the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Joel Mayward said:

I'm quite happy not making exceptions for Dekalog, Three Colors, or other trilogies/series (the Apu or Before trilogies, for example), and sticking with the guidelines Darren suggested in an above post.

I want to reiterate this central point from my earlier post. :) 

Tangentially, I recall that Ebert included Dekalog on his Sight and Sound poll lists for years, until in 2012 when they changed the rules and Dekalog was considered 10 short films, and thus essentially ineligible. So he replaced it with The Tree of Life on his 2012 list.

Share this post


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

Another question that could be polled would be whether or not to grandfather those 34 films mentioned above into the nominated films list (or rather 36 films, since it sounds like consensus would be, in this case, to grandfather Blue, White, and Red into the nominations as separate entries).

Are there other issues to be polled where there is no consensus? Do we need more discussion?

Golden ticket stage (one film per person) if under 20 participants vs. an honorable mentions list (one film per participant)?

Number of films per director on final list (2? 3? 4? or no limit?)

Thanks for this summation, Rob.  I think the Decalog question has a consensus, but perhaps we could informally give our yays or nays to the other questions here?

1) Do we grandfather in the 30-some films before, or do we consider adding in missed films after we submit our lists secretly?

2) Do the golden ticket films go into the Top 100 or Honorable Mention?

3) Number of films per director on final list?

For the record, I vote as follows:

- 1) After

- 2) Into the Top 100 if under 20 participants; Honorable Mention otherwise

- 3) Here, I'd go with tradition and stick with 3 (for me, this strikes a balance between recognizing the greatness of certain directors while making sure they don't hog the spotlight).


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:

Thanks for this summation, Rob.  I think the Decalog question has a consensus, but perhaps we could informally give our yays or nays to the other questions here?

1) Do we grandfather in the 30-some films before, or do we consider adding in missed films after we submit our lists secretly?

2) Do the golden ticket films go into the Top 100 or Honorable Mention?

3) Number of films per director on final list?

For the record, I vote as follows:

- 1) After

- 2) Into the Top 100 if under 20 participants; Honorable Mention otherwise

- 3) Here, I'd go with tradition and stick with 3 (for me, this strikes a balance between recognizing the greatness of certain directors while making sure they don't hog the spotlight).

1) By grandfathering, I assume we've been talking about putting them automatically on the list of nominations, not grandfathering them onto the list itself? Is that correct? I would guess that such films, if they really are in that rarefied air, will be be on *someone's* list, and therefore I don't seen grandfathering them into nominations as necessary. (One could make the argument that if they were grandfathered, I wouldn't have to use one of the slots on *my* list for them, and we might get a more eclectic or broader range of choices. But that could still happen if people assume "well someone else will nominate that," so I am going to nominate something I am equally passionate about but that might not get another nomination. 

2) I would prefer not to have an Honorable Mentions section, whatever we decide about Golden Tickets notwithstanding. The HM fits better for Ecumenical Jury, shorter lists, or places where we are publishing elsewhere. It might be possible, if someone feels strongly about an omission or omissions, that this could be integrated into a blurb or even a book essay. (I'm already drafting a chapter on The Exorcist and The Godfather, though I'm not sure whether I want to position it in my own book or as part of anthology.

3) it would make sense to me to defer that decision until we have a list of nominations. It may be moot. 

Share this post


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

1) Do we grandfather in the 30-some films before, or do we consider adding in missed films after we submit our lists secretly?

2) Do the golden ticket films go into the Top 100 or Honorable Mention?

3) Number of films per director on final list?

1) The more I consider it, I think I prefer we start from scratch. No grandfathering (or grandmothering). All nominations come from this year's iteration of A&F community list-making.

2) Maybe the "golden ticket" idea into the Top 100 if there are not truly enough nominees? But I'd prefer to delay on this until we see what comes out of the various Top 25 lists.

3) I still like the 3-films-per-director limit, but I can appreciate Ken's response, that it may not matter until we have a list of nominations.

Share this post


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

1) By grandfathering, I assume we've been talking about putting them automatically on the list of nominations, not grandfathering them onto the list itself? Is that correct?

Yes, that's my understanding of it.


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
19 hours ago, Andrew said:

I think the Decalog question has a consensus

I think you're right, and I have no problem accepting that. I'll just say that, conversely to Ken, I don't really get the argument for not considering this one exception :) Not that I need one. 

On 2/23/2020 at 12:08 AM, Joel Mayward said:

Tangentially, I recall that Ebert included Dekalog on his Sight and Sound poll lists for years, until in 2012 when they changed the rules and Dekalog was considered 10 short films, and thus essentially ineligible. So he replaced it with The Tree of Life on his 2012 list.

A list with The Tree of Life instead of Dekalog is certainly still a good one! I guess I shouldn't be surprised to find that Ebert considered those to be some of the greatest, since they are in my book, too!

17 hours ago, kenmorefield said:

I would guess that such films, if they really are in that rarefied air, will be be on *someone's* list, and therefore I don't seen grandfathering them into nominations as necessary. (One could make the argument that if they were grandfathered, I wouldn't have to use one of the slots on *my* list for them, and we might get a more eclectic or broader range of choices. But that could still happen if people assume "well someone else will nominate that," so I am going to nominate something I am equally passionate about but that might not get another nomination. 

1. Grandfathering (or grandparenting...) can serve two purposes. It can make the nominations process easier since certain films likely to be nominated will be already included. It's a convenience. Submitting blind lists will also streamline this process. But grandfathering some films would make the kind of tactical nominating Ken describes less likely or necessary. The other purpose it could serve is to make sure that a wider group of films get considered for voting.

The way I see it, grandfathering some films would be one mechanism to ensure the latter, and that's the bigger issue. I am not at all attached to the idea of grandfathering films from the old lists. I, like Joel and others, find starting from scratch appealing. And I like the idea of submitting lists for nominations. But duplicates could result in a lot of "wasted" nominations, and films worthy of consideration could get left out. I guess I prefer a nominations process like the old way because that is a little more straightforward and gives us what we'll know covers the full range of films we might want to consider for the voting  list. I'd rather consider as many films as possible and let the voting, rather than the nominations process, weed films out. I at least favor a stage after we submit our lists to suggest some more to be considered, as has been suggested.

Sorry, I don't mean to be a contrarian! Just trying to articulate my thoughts.

I don't have strong feelings on golden ticket or honorable mentions, but I think Ken makes a good point. A list of 100 films is a lot even without honorable mentions.

Deciding later on films per director is fine. I think 3 or 4 seems right. Two is too few, but I do think some limit makes sense.

Edited by Rob Z

Share this post


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

Sorry, I don't mean to be a contrarian! Just trying to articulate my thoughts.

Being contrarian is okay. 

One of my operating goals when I bought the site was to try to create a space where disagreement was acceptable. I sense(d) that if A&F would survive to become something other than an archive of content, that would be important. (Primarily because I really don't care for the scapegoating tendencies of social media or insular communities.) 

I remember doing some communication training a few years ago. I won't bore people with all the details, but one thing that stuck in my head and resonated very deeply was tgat differences in thinking and communication preferences make planning and brainstorming landmines for conflict. Part of this is because certain types view new ideas as interruptions (or even criticisms) that *should* have been brought up earlier or mean resetting the whole process. They are often anxious to come to a decision and begin implementation. Others people view the former types as trying to bulldoze the process and ignore input of others. They sometimes feel shut out or not heard/included. 

My profile was weird in that I had preferences in both styles, which sometimes means I'm in conflict with myself but can also mean that I can mitigate against each preference's potential downsides (there are also upsides, but I don't get into that here) by trying to have really defined parameters for brainstorming/ideation. It's not my natural tendency, but even if an idea seems to have a consensus, training and experience tells me to wait a beat or two before implementation. Some people process ideas slower, are more are reluctant to speak up, etc. 

In this case, Darren offered a new idea fairly late in the process -- and we are the better for it. People liked it, and his willingness to articulate it helped others to put their finger on what they did or did not want the process to be. 

The grandparenting thing in general (and The Dekalog exception specifically) pushes some of my buttons. All the more reason to listen carefully to make sure I am not just being reactive and hearing what I want to hear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posting quickly from a fest . . .

Fwiw, I'm open to the idea of grandfathering in a handful of films before submitting Top 25s -- kind of like how on the final round of Wheel of Fortune they give contestants R S T L N E. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have there been rules/restrictions against documentaries in the past, or is it just that the community does not nominate them? (I see 2019 Growing Older has 35 Up and Faces Places and Gleaners & I. I am thinking of the Top 100 lists.)

Share this post


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

Have there been rules/restrictions against documentaries in the past, or is it just that the community does not nominate them? (I see 2019 Growing Older has 35 Up and Faces Places and Gleaners & I. I am thinking of the Top 100 lists.)

I believe the 2011 Top 100 list includes Born into Brothels and The Story of the Weeping Camel (the latter of which is partially scripted/reenacted, I think, but still a documentary). And Into Great Silence. Maybe others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK, there have not been restrictions on documentaries. Rob mentioned a few already; the 2010 list also had The House is Black and Frisbee: The Life and Death of a Hippie Preacher.

Regarding the limitations on filmmakers, I notice that the 2010 list includes *five* of the Dardennes films (which was all of their major films at the time) and *six* Tarkovsky films.

Regarding the grandfathering of nominees and Ken's idea of a "Veteran's" group who decide those, this post from Anna in the 2010 list-making process suggests that a similar idea was done in the past:

Quote

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

Since the participants thus far have been folks knowledgeable about their film history, the only place where I could see the necessity of a veterans committee would be in a preventative capacity.  Say, a fly-by-night member or group of trolls attempted to add a Pureflix film or a mediocre bit of atheist propaganda like The Unbelievers.  I think having a veterans committee that operated with complete transparency might be good to have on standby, just in case.

I think, otherwise, the issues addressed by the erstwhile Nominating Committee (number of films per director, etc.) can be addressed in discussion here.


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

I was specifically thinking of a Veteran's Committee only for the narrow mandate of grandparenting or including in nominations films that somehow slipped through the cracks.  While I think that idea is possible/workable, I think I hear a slight preference for a wait-and-see approach. If we are dissatisfied with the collective nominees after the independent lists, we could revisit what to do about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was speaking to a long-time friend about this project the other day, and and he expressed a concern for diversity (racial/gender, other) in the voters for such a list. 

That sometimes feels like a Catch-22 -- people may feel more comfortable contributing if the group is more diverse, but the group will never be diverse until more diverse people are willing/comfortable to participate. 

That's a way of saying, though, with Darren't proposed initial format, this could be an opportunity to invite friends/colleagues to contribute nominations. I'm personally less concerned about bringing those people into A&F and converting them into regular *forum* contributors, though that's not a bad thing. But the Ecumenical Jury has people who contribute to its formation and by and by and large haven't participated in A&F much beyond that, which is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, my one concern with the Top 25 lists approach is that I haven't really been much of a list-maker lately. Can't remember the last time I made a year-end Top 10 list. Heck, I still haven't picked an "honorable mention" for our last Ecumenical Jury list (and it's probably way too late to do that now, isn't it). The prospect of trawling through all my moviegoing memories and all of film history to come up with an all-time Top 25 seems kind of... daunting... to me.

Rob Z wrote:
: A Top 100 that contains or at least considered, say, Blue and/or Red instead of the trilogy isn’t missing anything as an Arts & Faith list in my book.

FWIW, I'm one of the people who likes White the best of the trilogy (or at least, that was how I responded when I watched all three films together back in the '90s). I know Leonard Maltin might not be considered the most highbrow of critics, but White was apparently *his* favorite of the trilogy, too -- so I'm not alone in this!

kenmorefield wrote:
:
I'm personally less concerned about bringing those people into A&F and converting them into regular *forum* contributors, though that's not a bad thing. But the Ecumenical Jury has people who contribute to its formation and by and by and large haven't participated in A&F much beyond that, which is fine.

I dunno, the A&F lists are supposed to reflect the A&F *community*, whereas the Ecumenical Jury is something else, no? I don't think we need to jump through hoops just to contrive a different identity for ourselves. We are who we are. (And who we are keeps changing, but so far we have evolved naturally, not artificially.)


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2020 at 4:09 PM, kenmorefield said:

I was speaking to a long-time friend about this project the other day, and and he expressed a concern for diversity (racial/gender, other) in the voters for such a list. 

That sometimes feels like a Catch-22 -- people may feel more comfortable contributing if the group is more diverse, but the group will never be diverse until more diverse people are willing/comfortable to participate. 

I've thought about this quite a bit as well, as helping foster an environment for open conversations about the arts and faith for people from a variety of contexts and traditions is valuable to me, and I think extending invitations to participate are, for the most part, a good thing. That being said, I'm also wary of both tokenism and invitations simply to get more participants whether or not they've been engaged with A&F before (this latter approach feels more like marketing than hospitality). 

Inviting members of the Ecumenical Juries makes sense to me, as they're all aware of what A&F is about, have participated in some aspect of the A&F conversation, and are folks who generally have seen a lot of films and could offer some interesting lists of 25 nominees (in particular, I know Noel Manning has expressed interest). If that seems like a good idea, I can send out an email for that when the time comes to submit lists, though I also don't imagine all of those film critics would necessarily participate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Peter T Chattaway said:

I dunno, the A&F lists are supposed to reflect the A&F *community*, whereas the Ecumenical Jury is something else, no? I don't think we need to jump through hoops just to contrive a different identity for ourselves. We are who we are. (And who we are keeps changing, but so far we have evolved naturally, not artificially.)

This resonates with me.  And I'd love to see the number of participants at A&F expand greatly, too.  So I think it's great to invite folks to be a part of things here (as I did with a column promoting last year's Top 25 list), but not solely to have more Top 100 contributors.  Perhaps something along the lines of "hey, we've got an excellent thing going on here, and what a great time to join, because we're making a Top 100 list, with a book of essays hopefully emerging from it."  And if there are formerly active folks that we're still in touch with, this might be a good time to reach out to them, too.

Edited by Andrew

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
17 hours ago, Joel Mayward said:

I've thought about this quite a bit as well, as helping foster an environment for open conversations about the arts and faith for people from a variety of contexts and traditions is valuable to me, and I think extending invitations to participate are, for the most part, a good thing. That being said, I'm also wary of both tokenism and invitations simply to get more participants whether or not they've been engaged with A&F before (this latter approach feels more like marketing than hospitality). 

 

I think over the past year and-a-half I've exhibited a consistent lack of interest in marketing or growing the site in any way other than just trying to keep it free, available, and the sort of place that the people who do use it enjoy.

It is probably worth clarifying that my conversation came more in context of the book than the forum. Since I expect there will need to be some book contributors outside of regular forum participants, it is prudent to explore what would or would not lead others to submit. I would like to get a Call For Papers out while the list making is underway so that those interested in an essay can have some input into the list itself if they want to, but beyond that, I'm a bit like Peter -- we are who we are -- and most of my decisions are attempts to serve the people who are here rather than grow the site. That said, the issue of diversity is one that's come up multiple times over the years, and it's good to be aware of it. Even if that doesn't mean bringing in new people (I'm such a crappy evangelist anyway) it might mean being aware of the lack of diversity when making our own nominations and questioning ourselves about whether our lack of diversity effects things like perspective and how we define "spiritually significant." I don't think, for example, The Celluloid Closet has ever been nominated, and I probably will put it on my list of nominees.

That being said, it may end up being easier to invite an essay that looks at the list through the lens of diversity (whether the author is a contributor or not) than to try to reshape the list to reflect a diversity that isn't currently present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Peter T Chattaway said:

kenmorefield wrote:
:
I'm personally less concerned about bringing those people into A&F and converting them into regular *forum* contributors, though that's not a bad thing. But the Ecumenical Jury has people who contribute to its formation and by and by and large haven't participated in A&F much beyond that, which is fine.

I dunno, the A&F lists are supposed to reflect the A&F *community*, whereas the Ecumenical Jury is something else, no? I don't think we need to jump through hoops just to contrive a different identity for ourselves. We are who we are. (And who we are keeps changing, but so far we have evolved naturally, not artificially.)

The EJ was originally a project distinct from A&F -- it was actually an attempt to keep alive Christianity Today's misleadingly titled "Most Redemptive" lists after they went away from a stable of writers who voted each year to a chief critic and then to being completely outsourced. With Greg's permission (back when A&F was under Image management) I used the forum to organize or communicate since a number of jury members (but not all) were on A&F. Also, maybe Image Good Letters published results first year or two? 

After the first year the group (or representative of the group) that has Ecumenical Jury in film festivals (like Cannes) raised concerns that our name was misleading, so we had a lot of discussion about relabeling it. The consensus was that to simply call it the "Ecumenical Jury" would invite confusion with Interfilm (or whatever their organization was) and so it needed to be "The __________ Ecumenical Jury." The consensus was that Arts & Faith Ecumenical Jury made the most sense, but because my own relationship to the forum was...strained....at that point, there was some solicitousness about my feelings. (What if I brought the project to A&F and was subsequently banned again? What if the person running the jury could not agree on some points of management or publicity with the owner of the forum?) SDG was particularly cautious about wanting to be sure that A&F wasn't just taking over a "Ken" project. So it became A&F Ecumenical Jury, but with sort of a traditional understanding that within that context, it was Ken's show, and for a couple years, I would initiate procedures by message Greg, making sure A&F was okay with my running it again this year, etc. Obviously when ownership of A&F changed hands, that more or less solidified the Ecumenical Jury as an A&F property -- even to the extent that I could invite others (Joel has been immensely helpful) to run it without having to be careful that what was best for the EJ was in line with what was best for Image or in line with another administrator's vision for the site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Peter T Chattaway said:

FWIW, my one concern with the Top 25 lists approach is that I haven't really been much of a list-maker lately. Can't remember the last time I made a year-end Top 10 list. Heck, I still haven't picked an "honorable mention" for our last Ecumenical Jury list (and it's probably way too late to do that now, isn't it). The prospect of trawling through all my moviegoing memories and all of film history to come up with an all-time Top 25 seems kind of... daunting... to me.

Sorry it feels daunting to you. I suspect part of the reason is that you (and others) have an admirable sense of integrity and may thus agonize more than I will between choices 21 and 22...etc. I don't expect my own list will take more than an hour to make and if I have a brain cramp and accidentally leave off Ordet or something....well, that's what the rest of the community is for. 

I just view it this way ... i have 25 nominations, I just need to make them all at the same time rather than checking in over a period of weeks to see which (if any) have been seconded or which have already been nominated. 

P.S. Given that the EJ is on this site, I can add your honorable mention to the list if you have one. Deadline is more significant if/when list is published externally.

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...