Jump to content
Darren H

Discussion of voting process

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, kenmorefield said:

So, this is a delicate matter, but we need to address it before distributing the results.

I *thought* we had agreed that voting would be limited those people that submitted nominations, but we did a lot of discussion and can't find that agreement. We had at least two people who voted who did not submit nominations. Also, if Darren says 22 people voted in total and we had 23 nominators, that means at least three people submitted nominations and then did not vote. 

We can proceed in one of a couple ways:

1) Tally based just on the votes of those who nominated.

2) Tally including all the votes.

I'm inclined to...well, I'm not sure what I'm inclined to do, other than it's one of my personal buttons when people in charge of anything announce one set of rules and procedures and then follow another. That being said, not electing Supreme Court Justices here, so I'm willing to roll with it if that's what others want. (incidentally, if you have strong feelings either way and don't want to post publicly, feel free to PM me.)

Having thought about this some more and heard from one or two people privately, I am reading to say my inclination is to include the two voters who did not make nominations. A&F is still in the rebuilding stage, and it feels cold to encourage people to participate and then say, "oops, sorry, your votes don't count." 

I have a *lot* of baggage around changing the rules, but I recognize that each situation is different, and I would rather err on the the side of being inclusive than exclusive..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support including the votes of the two people who didn't submit nominations. I think more A&F members participating will enrich the list, and I doubt two exceptions will alter the outcome that much.

Along those lines, Darren, does adding those votes fix the top 25 at all?


"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

> Does adding those votes fix the top 25 at all?

I'll have to rerun the numbers, but I'm sure it won't fix the top 25. Might also need to adjust the cutoff point. I'll work on it during my lunch break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the Dreyer rankings at #1 and #2, that's not all that different from previous lists, where they were #1 and #4 (2010) and #1 and #3 (2011). I imagine the second round of voting on the Top 25 would bring about more of a spread, as it would force voters to have to make a choice in ranking.

Share this post


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

If we apply that rule it will also affect Bresson and the Dardennes -- again, to absolutely no one's surprise. Although I am a bit surprised by which Bresson films made the cut. And, yes, I'm going to keep teasing results throughout the day!

And here I figured I'd be the only one to write-in Un Femme Douce!

That doesn't change me preference (not a mandate, just one person's preference) to limit Top 25  to 1 film per director. (Well, we could say one was by Luc and one was by Jean-Pie....no). One of my goals/hopes was "more diversity." But Joel raises a good point that its not like this is unprecedented. So I'll be a little disappointed if we have 5 directors with multiple entries in the Top 25, but I can live with it either way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we announce the results tomorrow, can we include the third and fourth (and maybe fifth) films by directors where they originally fell? I'm very curious to see the difference the two films per director rule made.


"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

Looking at the 2011 again, the top 25 has two Dreyers, two Kieślowskis (technically 13 films between Dekalog and Three Colors), two Bergmans, two Bressons, two Dardennes, and *three* Tarkovskys. And two films featuring Robert Duvall at #21 (Tender Mercies) and #22 (The Apostle). So, taking one Dreyer film now and dropping it from #2 to #26 doesn't have much of a precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing part of the reason for all those films finishing that high is half of us feel one of them deserves a 6 with the other deserving a 5 or 4, and the other half of us feel the opposite way, so it will be interesting to see what happens with ranking the top 25.

I agree with Joel that dropping the second films by those directors to 25-30 is unprecedented, but I definitely favor more diversity in the top 25, so maybe let's wait and see what happens after the second ballot?

Edited by Evan C

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

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

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason, the diversity of the list matters more to me this time through because I know it will be in a book. I keep imaging flipping through a coffee-table-style book (knowing it won't be) from front to back and not wanting to see the same directors mentioned twice in the first 25 pages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> I'm guessing part of the reason for all those films finishing that high is half of us feel one of them deserves a 6 with the other deserving a 5 or 4, and the other half of us feel the opposite way, so it will be interesting to see what happens with ranking the top 25.

A likely scenario would be we split our new votes for Dreyer, so neither Ordet nor Passion end up in the top slot, which doesn't seem right either.

Share this post


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

Adding the two voters shifts it to a "six vote minimum" rule.

Speaking blind, (I haven't seen the results and don't know which films would be affected), I might advocate for keeping it at five since at least one of the two new voters expressed some concern that he did not wish his not having seen as many films to have a detrimental effect on those films he hadn't seen. But again, that's just an off-the-cuff reaction. I'm most likely to be swayed by D's recommendations (if any) since I think he has a better, more specific grasp of the implications of data crunching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the difference would affect two slots in the top 100 -- a film that would make the cut with the 5-film rule and the film that would be bumped out of the 100 spot. The second standard deviation technically still puts the cutoff at 5, so I'm okay with your suggestion, Ken. (I haven't seen the film that is most directly affected by the change.)

Share this post


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

Looks like the difference would affect two slots in the top 100 -- a film that would make the cut with the 5-film rule and the film that would be bumped out of the 100 spot. The second standard deviation technically still puts the cutoff at 5, so I'm okay with your suggestion, Ken. (I haven't seen the film that is most directly affected by the change.)

Takes deep breath. Closes eyes. Utters a silent prayer that Film 100 not be Rounders or Fever Pitch....nods in assent.

 

Quote

We now have two Dreyers, two Malicks, and two Tarkovskys in the top 9! Come on people, distribute your points!

I do think that moving the second of the two films out of the Top 25, if we are going to do it, makes more sense before a Round 2 Ballot rather than after. Because my tendency in a Round 2 ballot would be to move the lower of those two films to the 20-25 slots, and if enough voters do that with different films, we could end up bumping *both* films by the same directors out. 

Share this post


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

We now have two Dreyers, two Malicks, and two Tarkovskys in the top 9! Come on people, distribute your points!

And yet, isn't this to be somewhat expected? I know I voted 5s and 6s for many of these directors' films, and I imagine others did likewise. I totally understand and appreciate the desire to have things spread out a bit more, but we also gotta be honest about those films which feel "spiritually significant" to us collectively. 

Share this post


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

I have a *lot* of baggage around changing the rules, but I recognize that each situation is different, and I would rather err on the the side of being inclusive than exclusive..

Agree 100%.

6 minutes ago, kenmorefield said:

I do think that moving the second of the two films out of the Top 25, if we are going to do it, makes more sense before a Round 2 Ballot rather than after. 

I dunno, I'm inclined to leave the top 25 as it is, until round 2 of ranking.  That feels less manipulated and more (ugh, I'm overusing this word today) organic.  I know, for instance, that I'll rank Ordet below The Passion of Joan of Arc, and I suspect others will do their own adjusting.  If some directors get more than one film in the top 25, they're probably worthy of that honor.

2 hours ago, Evan C said:

When we announce the results tomorrow, can we include the third and fourth (and maybe fifth) films by directors where they originally fell? I'm very curious to see the difference the two films per director rule made.

I'd love to see that too!


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

> Takes deep breath. Closes eyes. Utters a silent prayer that Film 100 not be Rounders or Fever Pitch....nods in assent.

Turns out the film that jumped into the top 100 is the second film by a director, so the bumped film is actually his third highest point getter (which I'm a little bummed about).

I want to do a couple more error checks before sharing anything, but it's looking like the #100 film is . . .

 

. . . and I'm not making this up . . .

 

. . . Magnolia!

Share this post


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

And yet, isn't this to be somewhat expected? I know I voted 5s and 6s for many of these directors' films, and I imagine others did likewise.

Perhaps...if (and this is a big if) that is what happened. I know I gave my first preference (among multiple films from the same director) a 6, the second a 5, and the rest 3s. If others just gave all films 6s figuring that they wanted one of them to be high but didn't care which one, that might have artificially inflated the results.

 

Share this post


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

I want to do a couple more error checks before sharing anything, but it's looking like the #100 film is . . .

 

. . . and I'm not making this up . . .

 

. . . Magnolia!

In Darth Vader voice:  Noooooo!


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
Just now, Darren H said:

> Takes deep breath. Closes eyes. Utters a silent prayer that Film 100 not be Rounders or Fever Pitch....nods in assent.

Turns out the film that jumped into the top 100 is the second film by a director, so the bumped film is actually his third highest point getter (which I'm a little bummed about).

I want to do a couple more error checks before sharing anything, but it's looking like the #100 film is . . .

 

. . . and I'm not making this up . . .

 

. . . Magnolia!

Suh-weet! I think it's only fair that you or Ken have to write the summary for Magnolia after the way you guys have treated it during the Top 100 process. ;)


"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Share this post


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

 

I want to do a couple more error checks before sharing anything, but it's looking like the #100 film is . . .

 

. . . and I'm not making this up . . .

 

. . . Magnolia!

Literal spit-take. 
You know, that in some ways actually makes me happier than if it missed altogether. (I admit some of my own pettiness.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> When we announce the results tomorrow, can we include the third and fourth (and maybe fifth) films by directors where they originally fell? I'm very curious to see the difference the two films per director rule made.

Looks like there are 18 directors with two films in the top 100. Thirteen of those had additional films that I cut out of the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking from the perspective of someone for whom the Top 100 list has been unspeakably formative in the journey of disovering international film to begin with - 

While I think making a one-film-per-director rule for the top 25 has a merit, especially after imagining the list in a curated book format as Daren mentioned, the Ordet/Joan problem is exactly what would make a rule like that seem particularly disappointing to me given the nature of those two films. Other than sharing the same director, they could hardly be more distinct from each other. If the concern is representing more diversity in selection, I would think a scenario that pushed Joan to #26 would have the opposite effect if it were to suddenly leave the Top 25 without such a rich example of cinema's silent era. (I imagine Sunrise might still be up there, but that's just an example!)

Share this post


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

> Takes deep breath. Closes eyes. Utters a silent prayer that Film 100 not be Rounders or Fever Pitch....nods in assent.

Turns out the film that jumped into the top 100 is the second film by a director, so the bumped film is actually his third highest point getter (which I'm a little bummed about).

I want to do a couple more error checks before sharing anything, but it's looking like the #100 film is . . .

 

. . . and I'm not making this up . . .

 

. . . Magnolia!

I surmise this means that Phantom Thread would now be in the Top 100? Woah. I think the bthing I'll be most eager for is counting all the films that are less than ten years old!

edit: or wait, did I read that wrong and Phantom Thread just narrowly missed? 

Edited by Jeremy Ratzlaff

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...