Jump to content
Darren H

Discussion of voting process

Recommended Posts

This is my understanding of the general consensus of the process going forward.

1. Finalize the list of nominations

The original 332 nominations have been posted. We also have a thread for collecting +1 nominations.

Questions:

  • When is the due date for +1?

2. First round of voting

A few people have suggested that a 5-point scale might not be broad enough for so many nominations. Because I'm trapped in the house and enjoy nerding out about this kind of stuff, I've begun drafting a voting tool using an app I work with quite a bit in my day job. For now, I've set it to a 7-point scale, but everything can be changed in seconds. Once we answer the questions below, I'll knock out the changes.

Questions:

  • What point scale should we use?
  • When is the due date for voting?

3. Unveiling the Top 100(s)

I added the (s) because in the organization thread we've thrown out a number of ideas for how to adjust the raw results to account for consensus. We've also discussed the films-per-director limit. Once this stuff is in a spreadsheet it will be easy enough to present multiple versions of the list.

Questions:

  • Do we want to settle the process before we do the first round of voting? The other option would be looking at the Top 100s and picking the best one. (I suspect that even if we agree to a process beforehand several of us will want to see the other versions out of curiosity).

4. Second round of voting

There seems to be consensus that a second round of voting could be useful -- as a group activity, as an opportunity to watch/revisit/discuss more of the 100 films, and as a way to finetune the ordering of the final list. Several voters like the idea of submitting a ranked top 25, which would give 25 points to each #1 pick and 1 point to each #25 pick.

Films that receive no votes would be ranked in the order of the first round result. For example, if 82 films receive at least one point in round two, the #83 slot will go to the highest ranked film from round one that received no votes in round two. The first round result could also be used to break second round ties. For example, if Ordet and The Passion of Joan of Arc both end up with 460 points, the "winner" would be whichever film had the higher ranking in round one.

Questions:

  • Do we all agree to this process? Can it be improved in any way?
  • When is the due date for voting?

5. Unveiling the final Top 100

We're building consensus on the process now so that no one can complain when the final list is unveiled!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of very quick preliminary thoughts:

1) I would make the deadline for +1 fairly quick as it shouldn't take that long for viewers to revisit their short list? Say 72 hours?
2) First round of voting....
I think the initial plan was that April would be the month to lobby and watch films and we'd vote sometime around May 1. That could be changed based on the nominations taking and extra couple of days or the COVID-19 changing people's schedules. Also, there are a lot more nominees than I anticipated. (Not a bad thing.) So this process could take longer.  My gut instinct tells me that May 4 to open voting feels right, but who knows? That's based on projections that in my area COVID-19 will reach peak curve at the end of April. I suspect that once social distancing restrictions are slackened in various places people will be slammed at work and want to turn their attention back to other places, so that could be an argument for trying to shorten to get voting done by end of April. 

I think a 5 point scale is sufficient *if* there is a second round for ranking, but I could adjust to a 7 point scale fairly easily. Based on limited experience scoring AP exams, I find a 9 point scale very cumbersome. Another alternative --- a six point scale? That's essentially the five point scale with a "6" ranking limited to the 10-20 films one is most passionate about.

3) I'm flexible but in general I like to settle before voting. It sounds like there is a consensus for a 2 film/director limit with no juking.

4) That is the process we use in Ecumenical Jury and it works well. But in that we picked the Top 10 and then ranked them. If that were strictly applied here, we couldn't *change* the Top 20 /25(i.e. bump a film from the 30s into it) just re-order the top 20. If we allowed someone to rank any film in the Top 100, I doubt seriously a film would move up from 100 to 15 or something, but it most likely would cause some jumps. 

Also, and I think this is important to consider, although it might be less so with 25 voters (even if not all do the second ballot), in my experience with EJ, this can give naysayers (or even a single naysayer) a lot of impact on the very top of the list. If, say, 23 out of 25 voters have the same film at #1 and 2 voters leave it off their second ballot completely, that could end up bumping up the film that nobody really thinks is #1 but has no detractors. There are ways around that. Perhaps the second, ranking ballot could be mandated to have the Top 15 (or whatever number) finishers and a certain number (5 or 10) from anywhere else on the list. Just spitballing.

5) If you haven't check out the A&F archive page with the past lists (being updated), please do: http://artsandfaith.com/index.php?/films/ 

Be thinking about whether or not you want to write blurbs (and know that the format allows a bit more space than just 2-3 sentences *if you want.* Also, be thinking about if you want to volunteer to write the introduction and where we want that posted, if at all. Both Christianity Today and Image passed on covering the Top 25 last year, but they both indicated a desire to be kept abreast of these sort of projects. The Ecumenical Jury was at Transpositions one year, though last year it was just an internal posting. I'm actually okay with that, but I certainly have no problem if anyone wants to pitch it to an outlet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because this stuff intersects with my day job, I justified spending part of the morning reading around the subject of Likert scales. From my totally superficial understanding, I think the 7-point scale makes the most sense. We have a lot of nominees to work through, so this will allow a broader, less neutral range of responses. I'm open to other opinions, though.

I'm definitely in favor of the 2-film-per-director rule. I'm curious to see how that one shakes out. This project has made me realize that Kiarostami is now my favorite "spiritual" filmmaker, but I don't know that there's any consensus around particular films -- certainly not in the way we can expect to see Joan and Ordet near the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My quick kneejerk thoughts to the questions:

1) +1 deadline should be very soon, whether Ken's 72 hours suggestion or at least by the end of this week (April 10).

2) I like the idea of a 7-point scale over 5- or 6-points, as it allows for a "neutral" middle while better differentiating between strong approval and general approval (and disapproval, etc.). I can see how a 10-point scale would also be doable, as this matches Letterboxd, IMBd, and other 5-star rating systems that allow 1/2 points. And Darren, thanks for developing an app for voting! Perhaps it could be adjusted for use with the EJ in the future?

3) I'd like to settle before voting too, even if I'd be curious to see other iterations. Two director limit is my preference at this point (I could be swayed towards three directors, but I doubt we're going in that direction).

4) I think having a Top 25 ranked list makes a lot of sense, and feels feasible. That said, I think we need to consider Ken's point about whether or not the Top 25 would be an arrangement of the actual ranked Top 25 films, or our own personal Top 25 of the 100 final films (i.e. I rank 25 of any of the films). I think I'd prefer the former over the latter (though I could easily be persuaded to change my mind on this), as our initial 25 lists kinda feel like our own personal 25, in a way. Strange to say this, but I like the restriction of having to rank 25 films, even whether or not I've seen them.

When it comes to the due date for voting, I'm inclined to have a date later than May 4, which is less than a month away to try to catch up on many possible films (I, sadly, think the social restrictions and quarantine measures won't necessarily be over by then, at least in the UK, unless a vaccine is made readily available and doesn't make matters worse). Would June 1 be too late? That's eight weeks away from today.

5) I'm curious if Christianity Today would be more interested in at least having some sort of write-up about the list this time around. The editors there seem to change quite frequently though, so it's difficult to say; right now, there's an editor there who is very interested in getting the "Entertainment" parts of CT back up and running. And I don't know what A&F's relationship is like with Image any more these days, as so much has changed there as well.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Strange to say this, but I like the restriction of having to rank 25 films, even whether or not I've seen them.

I'm coming around to this idea, too. If we go with the slight weighting in round 1, presumably there will already be considerable consensus around the top 25. If we allow 3-4 weeks between rounds 1 and 2, that would give all voters a chance to see/revisit as many of those 25 films as possible.

> Would June 1 be too late?

Fwiw, I'm leaning more toward Ken's idea of May 4. We have 23 voters, but not many of us are actively involved on the forum right now, so I'm not sure that waiting an additional month will generate that much more discussion around here. I could be wrong, though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Joel Mayward said:

My quick kneejerk thoughts to the questions:

1) +1 deadline should be very soon, whether Ken's 72 hours suggestion or at least by the end of this week (April 10).

2) I like the idea of a 7-point scale over 5- or 6-points, as it allows for a "neutral" middle while better differentiating between strong approval and general approval (and disapproval, etc.). I can see how a 10-point scale would also be doable, as this matches Letterboxd, IMBd, and other 5-star rating systems that allow 1/2 points. And Darren, thanks for developing an app for voting! Perhaps it could be adjusted for use with the EJ in the future?

3) I'd like to settle before voting too, even if I'd be curious to see other iterations. Two director limit is my preference at this point (I could be swayed towards three directors, but I doubt we're going in that direction).

4) I think having a Top 25 ranked list makes a lot of sense, and feels feasible. That said, I think we need to consider Ken's point about whether or not the Top 25 would be an arrangement of the actual ranked Top 25 films, or our own personal Top 25 of the 100 final films (i.e. I rank 25 of any of the films). I think I'd prefer the former over the latter (though I could easily be persuaded to change my mind on this), as our initial 25 lists kinda feel like our own personal 25, in a way. Strange to say this, but I like the restriction of having to rank 25 films, even whether or not I've seen them.

Thank you for making my day a little easier, Joel - I agree with everything quoted above.  Just a couple of add-on comments:

- I think a hard-and-fast April 10 deadline for +1's seems reasonable.

- My vote is for 2 films per director, to be decided upon conclusively as soon as possible (by April 10th again?)

- I don't have a strong opinion about a deadline for turning in our ratings on the 332 nominated films.  More time will give me a chance to watch more films, but I also don't think we should stretch out this period too long.  Keep the momentum going and all.  June 1st seems a bit late, in my opinion.


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 can appreciate not wanting to lose momentum, though I want to see as many films as I possibly can before voting...which, now that I think about it, prompts me to figure out how many films I've seen/not seen on from the 300+ films. Which is to say, if May 4 is the chosen date, I'm in.

Update: Turns out I have seen 250 of the nominated films, not including +1s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like 2/director is the consensus, though I grieve the films that will be lost. We want diversity and not domination by a dozen obvious directors. Yet it's also a list of films and not just of directors' top films, and some directors have made a lot of really good, really meaningful films. But I have no objections to this limit.

I'd prefer a 7 point scale, though 6 would be fine in the way Ken describes. I don't think a bell curve is an ideal in this kind of voting, and I don't think a neutral category is necessary. I like being forced to really make a judgment on those films I'm more neutral on.

Even with newly limited access to films, I'd appreciate as much time as possible to watch more. I've seen just under 200 (which I'm actually pretty amazed by ), though a handful (Yentl, Bull Durham) have been such a long time ago. So I'd request no earlier than May 4, though June feels a long time away.

I see the benefits of using a list of 25 from any of the Top 100 to determine the whole list, but Ken's point about naysayers is a good one. And maybe that's okay. I also think it would be interesting to rank just the top 25 just to determine the order of the 1-25 of the Top 100. I'm less clear on how a hybrid would work (i.e. something like, Rank 25 and 15 or 20 of those must be from the first round top 25). That would still just determine the final round's top 25, right? That seems appealing. I'm leaning toward limiting the focus of the second round just to determining the order of the final list's Top 25. Again, I don't have strong feelings on the precise mechanics of the second round as long as there is one.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that a ranking of 25 films from the final 100 would necessarily follow the list of things I've submitted. There are quite a few films on my list that I'd be ecstatic to see anywhere on the list but I'd have no interest in bumping up if they were in the 50-100 range. (Rounders, Run Lola Run, The Godfather, The End of the Affair.) Plus, if say Kid With a Bike was rated #12 and Two Days, One Night #82, I'd be more likely to reverse my preferences between those two films so that the one of them is slightly higher, even if it isn't necessarily the one of the director I would choose. So I don't think a ranking of just the Top 20/25 would be markedly different from me from a ranking of any 25 films that made the Top 100. 

Sounds like 2/director is the consensus. I'm okay with that. If we are keeping up with Top 25s on off years, then I think there are some chances to champion some films we like that may not have made the cut. I mean the Kurosawa film we did last year was not one of the ones that would make the cut on the larger list. 

I'll put an inquiry into the publisher about book idea and see if that has any impact on deadlines. I wouldn't think it would as the projects are fairly distinct. Keep in mind, too, that the wrap up will be quicker the fewer phases there are. So if we want to do a ranking after the initial vote, I would say it is important to have the vote be a little sooner. (Then again, will we need more time between rounds to watch films? For me, I can't imagine the Top 25 will be littered with entirely new films, though there may be one or two that take us off guard.) 

7 point scale is fine with me. 

Really the only thing I think we are wrestling with are dates. I don't think anyone can be completionist, so the shorter the deadline the more emphasis on the lobbying for eyeballs. I'm hugely busy with transitions to online instruction, but I'll confess that the longer in the future the dates the more apt I am to use that busy-ness as an excuse to procrastinate (I have time) and put it on the back burner rather than make the hard choices of which films to screen with whatever amount of time I have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> I'd prefer a 7 point scale, though 6 would be fine in the way Ken describes. I don't think a bell curve is an ideal in this kind of voting, and I don't think a neutral category is necessary. I like being forced to really make a judgment on those films I'm more neutral on.

Rob's comment got me thinking. With a list this long, I'm going to need some kind of rubric to help me decide how to vote. (I'm not suggesting we all need a shared rubric. I just need one myself.) Something like this makes sense to me:

  • 6: Should be in the top 25
  • 5: Should be in the top 60
  • 4: Should be in the top 100
  • 3: A very good film but misses the cut
  • 2: I recognize the merits of the film but don't believe it should be on the list
  • 1: I will be disappointed if it makes the list

I like this approach because asking me "What should be in the top 25?" is very different from asking me to nominate 25 films. I really hope Wavelength or Mothlight make the list, but I'm not sure if either would make sense in the top 25. I also wouldn't want, for example, two Bergman or two Dardenne films in the top 25, so it forces me to think about where to distribute my bigger points. (The Kid with a Bike is my favorite Dardenne film, but maybe I'd give it a 5 and The Son a 6?)

Just another idea to consider . . .

Edited by Darren H

Share this post


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

> I'd prefer a 7 point scale, though 6 would be fine in the way Ken describes. I don't think a bell curve is an ideal in this kind of voting, and I don't think a neutral category is necessary. I like being forced to really make a judgment on those films I'm more neutral on.

Rob's comment got me thinking. With a list this long, I'm going to need some kind of rubric to help me decide how to vote. (I'm not suggesting we all need a shared rubric. I just need one myself.) Something like this makes sense to me:

  • 6: Should be in the top 25
  • 5: Should be in the top 60
  • 4: Should be in the top 100
  • 3: A very good film but misses the cut
  • 2: I recognize the merits of the film but don't believe it should be on the list
  • 1: I will be disappointed if it makes the list

I like this approach because asking me "What should be in the top 25?" is very different from asking me to nominate 25 films. I really hope Wavelength or Mothlight make the list, but I'm not sure if either would make sense in the top 25. I also wouldn't want, for example, two Bergman or two Dardenne films in the top 25, so it forces me to think about where to distribute my bigger points. (The Kid with a Bike is my favorite Dardenne film, but maybe I'd give it a 5 and The Son a 6?)

Just another idea to consider . . .

This is great and helpful for me to know how others are thinking so I don't mis-register my votes.


"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.

Share this post


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

5) I'm curious if Christianity Today would be more interested in at least having some sort of write-up about the list this time around. The editors there seem to change quite frequently though, so it's difficult to say; right now, there's an editor there who is very interested in getting the "Entertainment" parts of CT back up and running. And I don't know what A&F's relationship is like with Image any more these days, as so much has changed there as well.

 

 

I *think* my relationship with both CT and Image is fine, but both also appear to be in states of flux, CTs maybe ongoing for over a decade. I think there is some interest there for Entertainment coverage, but I also think they are so swamped keeping the lights on that it is hard to get a response, much less a commitment. The impression I get is that rather than think about what kind of coverage they want (much less where to find it), they would prefer to just say, "Pitch ideas to _____ and we'll get back to you with the ones we like." And that often feels like playing blind darts with only bulls-eye's counting. Still it's CT, so there will always be people, especially those on the come, who are willing to pitch two dozen ideas and hear "no" 23 times to get to the one that reaches just the right decision maker at just the right moment. That's fine: I've been there. And I will always have a soft spot for CT for the doors it opened. I'd love to place coverage there...it's where I think it belongs. But I'm tired of raising my hand behind a one-way mirror and wondering if anyone is actually on the other end.If anyone wants to pitch them, I am totally okay with being supportive, but once I got individually critic approved on Rotten Tomatoes, somehow publicists stopped being concerned that anything I wrote specifically be on CT, and the last few things I've done for them have been at their suggestion. Still, there was a response with the Top 25 of "no for now but we might be interested down the road."

I feel like the hand off from Image went smoothly but the people who sold the site honestly didn't know who was taking over or what their vision would be. And in that sort of environment, it can take a year or more for a new editor to just get the lay of the land and begin to articulate his/her vision. I suspect Jeff would know more about how things stand there than I. 

Brett McCracken is very approachable at The Gospel Coalition and appears to have some editorial green light power. I *think* their online footprint may actually be bigger than CTs, but their film coverage is more...narrow.

Anyone still interact regularly with Alissa? Maybe we could pitch her to do a story for Vox? This would be different from the sort of essay/intros we write and place elsewhere, but maybe it would be good to have this be an internal even that is *covered* by someone else rather than a piece we create for someone else or post somewhere else.

 

Share this post


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

Rob's comment got me thinking. With a list this long, I'm going to need some kind of rubric to help me decide how to vote. (I'm not suggesting we all need a shared rubric. I just need one myself.) Something like this makes sense to me:

  • 6: Should be in the top 25
  • 5: Should be in the top 60
  • 4: Should be in the top 100
  • 3: A very good film but misses the cut
  • 2: I recognize the merits of the film but don't believe it should be on the list
  • 1: I will be disappointed if it makes the list

I like this approach because asking me "What should be in the top 25?" is very different from asking me to nominate 25 films. I really hope Wavelength or Mothlight make the list, but I'm not sure if either would make sense in the top 25. I also wouldn't want, for example, two Bergman or two Dardenne films in the top 25, so it forces me to think about where to distribute my bigger points. (The Kid with a Bike is my favorite Dardenne film, but maybe I'd give it a 5 and The Son a 6?)

Okay, this and Rob's comment makes me think a 6-point scale could be really great for this process. I really like the idea of the rubric, and use a similar system for my own star ratings on my website and Letterboxd. (On a related note: is there any possible way to see Wavelength beyond crappy YouTube uploads? I've wanted to watch it for years.)

Share this post


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

I like this approach because asking me "What should be in the top 25?" is very different from asking me to nominate 25 films. I really hope Wavelength or Mothlight make the list, but I'm not sure if either would make sense in the top 25. I also wouldn't want, for example, two Bergman or two Dardenne films in the top 25, so it forces me to think about where to distribute my bigger points. (The Kid with a Bike is my favorite Dardenne film, but maybe I'd give it a 5 and The Son a 6?)

I think a scale like this, along with the two per director rule, will force a lot of productive wrestling (via ranking and points allocation) for me of not just which films we value but which we value most of the films by our most beloved directors. I hope it produces discussion, too, because while I (and we) certainly have favorites, I'm fairly open to being convinced that one or another film would be a better fit than another for this list when a director has 3+ nominations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> I think a scale like this, along with the two per director rule, will force a lot of productive wrestling.

I agree. Another example for me would be Tarkovsky. The Mirror is my all-time favorite film, but with this rubric, I'd probably give 6 points to Andrei Rublev (which needs to be in our top 25) and 4 or 5 to The Mirror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the 6 point scale; I'm not sure how I would break down a 7 point scale.

After the nominees were published, I very quickly organized them into a list of 5s, 4s, 3s, 2s, and 1s, mostly so I could know how many I had not seen (answer: 80).

Anyway, my rubric for that was 5 - should be in the top 100; 4 - I'd be happy to see it on the list, but would pick something else slightly ahead of it; 3 - recognize the merits, but personally wouldn't pick it; 2 - don't want it on the list; 1 - really don't want it on the list.

However, I like Darren's rubric for the six point scale a lot better.


"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
18 minutes ago, Evan C said:

Anyway, my rubric for that was 5 - should be in the top 100; 4 - I'd be happy to see it on the list, but would pick something else slightly ahead of it; 3 - recognize the merits, but personally wouldn't pick it; 2 - don't want it on the list; 1 - really don't want it on the list.

However, I like Darren's rubric for the six point scale a lot better.

A&F is kinda in a friendly, charitable stage right now, and that's great. But along the lines of D's question of "do you want me watch films I know I'm not going to like," I would nudge people to...as gently and respectfully as possible take a *few* of the 2s or even 1s and express your reservations before voting so that their proponents at least have an opportunity to try to sway you...or at the very least feel heard. 

There are a couple of films on the nominations list that I have strong aversion to. I'm trying to to narrow that down to a few that I am honestly willing to engage with people about (which means listening and considering, not just defiantly saying, "justify this, because I think it doesn't belong..."  and also means being willing to say why you/I think it doesn't belong and not just *that* I don't like it.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken, I was actually thinking about you and Magnolia when I wrote, "1: I will be disappointed if it makes the list." I think that's a relatively gracious way to consider how to use our 1 votes.

Share this post


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

Ken, I was actually thinking about you and Magnolia when I wrote, "1: I will be disappointed if it makes the list." I think that's a relatively gracious way to consider how to use our 1 votes.

Many years ago Russ said (I think in reference to The Son) and it's always stuck with me that if there is collectively recognized genius somewhere, it is the critic's job to at least try to locate it. That doesn't always mean bowing to the majority, but I think it does mean taking pause and taking stock if/when one is an outlier. 

I'd probably give Magnolia a 2 or maybe even a 3. I find PTA pretentious, but I have to acknowledge he has his followers. And the person whose film opinion I respect most in the world wrote a strong review for it, so there's that. There are a lot of films among the noms that I don't particularly care for, but relatively few that I would say I would be "disappointed" if they made the list. Maybe Wise Blood. Maybe Tree of Life. But even the latter would be more of a disappointment of a family member who wants to believe for someone else's sake than that of someone who is pissed off at an emperor with no clothes.

P.S. And most the films, as a I look that would "disappoint" me would do so because I think there are better, more appropriate choices. I like Apocalypse Now just fine, I guess, but why anyone would prefer it on this list to The Godfather is harder for me to fathom. Love is Strange is a nice little movie, but do we really need a third version of Tokyo Story and Make Way for Tomorrow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use and review a lot of Likert and associated scales. I agree with the use of a 6 point scale here. With odd-numbered scales, the intent is to provide a neutral data point, which is useful in providing a experiential or preferential baseline within your data set - or isolating features of an experience which have had no measurable effect on a respondent's preference. With even-numbered scales, often called forced scales for this reason, respondents must consider and provide a specified response to the stimulus. This makes 4 or 6 point scale far more effective in evaluations requiring judgment based on specific criteria.

A 4 point scale is not fine enough for us, which makes 6 the natural solution.


"...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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly support the idea of a limit of films per director. I'd personally advocate for one film per director, with the other films by that director that would otherwise have been voted to the list being added in parentheses afterwards - i.e. Andrei Rublev (Stalker, The Sacrifice). But a limit of two is fine with me too.

Ken - dear friend - to your point about Love is Strange - I would advocate that it is not another version of Make Way for Tomorrow, but a riff on that magnificent film that transcends and includes, mostly because it's about a same-sex couple and the oppressive impact of the homophobia of religious institutions.

I like the 6 point scale; and assume that we will not vote for films we haven't seen.

And I'm enjoying this process very much - clearly one of the unintended consequences of self-isolation is more time for cinema :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Gareth Higgins said:

Ken - dear friend - to your point about Love is Strange - I would advocate that it is not another version of Make Way for Tomorrow, but a riff on that magnificent film that transcends and includes, mostly because it's about a same-sex couple and the oppressive impact of the homophobia of religious institutions.

Hear you...not sure I'm convinced, but I'm listening. 

And, hey, by saying I don't think we need all three versions, maybe there's some other Ozu besides Tokyo Story that would be a better choice and free up some traffic in that lane?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm persuaded by those touting the virtues of a 6 point scale.

The number of films per director is an interesting quandary, about which I'm wavering a bit.  Since we've got 50+ directors with more than one film nominated, they could certainly crowd out the directors with only a single film.  On the other hand, I think there's value in recognizing the greats of transcendent cinema (Bergman, Bresson, Kurosawa, Ozu, Dreyer, etc.) who consistently made masterpieces.  So right now I'm leaning towards two films per director.  Perhaps a compromise:  we do blurbs for the Top 100, but include sans blurbs 101-150 in whatever we publish?


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

It's too late to make this a rule, but updating the past lists to new app....I am tempted to make a rule that you can't nominate a film unless it has a dedicated A&F thread. 

 

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...