Jump to content

Discussion of voting process


Recommended Posts

I suppose that everyone discussing the ranking of the top 25 (an arbitrary cutoff, as all cutoffs must be on some level) sees the top 25 as a special honor. The more I have looked at lists like this over the years, the more I have begun to see the rankings as arbitrary, and look holistically at the list. I think there is some meaning at comparing what is at the very top versus the very bottom, but the more you get into the close rankings, and especially the more diversity of style and subject and form that the list has, the less and less meaningful the rankings are.

[As a sidebar--I don't propose this change now--I would suggest at least discussing making future lists that are unranked.]

I think a second ballot is either unnecessary, or should maybe be more expansive than just shuffling the top 25 around. I don't know how that would work though. I'm trying to think through this and I guess I'm not coming up with anything too helpful after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 214
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

14 minutes ago, Joshua Wilson said:

I would suggest at least discussing making future lists that are unranked.

Early iterations of the list were unranked. For instance, see the 2004 list here. I'm not sure what prompted creating a ranked list in the past.

34 minutes ago, kenmorefield said:

a second round of voting only considering nominated films directed by women or non-white males. (i.e. Does anyone want to change their score for those films having seen the results of Round 1?)

By my count, there are 28 films directed by women and/or people of color—am I accurate with this? (Math is not my strong suit.)

Edit/Update: A brief perusal of the 2011 list, I count 19 films directed by women and/or people of color.

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

Early iterations of the list were unranked. For instance, see the 2004 list here. I'm not sure what prompted creating a ranked list in the past.

Ah! Thanks for that bit of history, Joel. I think in the future we should consider a return to that. I think the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. (Also, what are the drawbacks?) Then it's more like a museum, where things are curated and displayed, but not ranked like an art competition. Even at an art competition, you often have narrow categories for subject and form. How am I to say that Ordet is really better than Stop Making Sense, for example?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

For context, the 2012 Sight & Sound Top 100, which is the gold standard, includes two films by women. I'm curious to see how that changes with the next iteration in two years.

I know this is the kind of last-minute idea that probably tests Ken's patience, but I think it would be interesting to present the list in chronological order, perhaps with an asterisk next to the 25 films that received the highest scores.

Edited by Darren H
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Josh makes a good point about the list holistically being more important than individual rankings. With that in mind, if we really want to change up the list, do we want to consider the golden ticket idea tossed out at the beginning of discussion for the last 24 slots, leaving the top 25 as is?

Personally, I don't like tweaking the results too much after the fact, but that at least had some discussion for precedent.

Edited by Evan C

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

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

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

Just popping in to say a big thanks to Darren, Ken, Joel, and all the others who have made this possible. I agree with many here that we should have a round 2 poll where we specifically reorder the top 25 results. I'm also okay with having more than one film per director. Unfortunately, I can't make the Zoom call tonight. I'll try to stay a little more engaged here to make sure I can contribute to the overall discussion.

Edited by Wade Bearden
Link to post
Share on other sites

A modest proposal:  Take the list that contains the 100 films with the two-films-per-director rule, then add the films that we'd get if we imposed the one-film-per-director requirement, then have willing voters rank those films from 1-100, and the films that fall outside of the top 100 fall out and you have your new list and order without revoting just the Top 25.  Is it somewhat arbitrary to decide whether a film is really your 76th favorite or 77th favorite on the list?  Totally, but we just ranked 350 movies on a six-point scale.  This is nothing.  Between any two movies I can always figure out which one is more meaningful to me.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just realized  this very second that Fritz Lang's M did not make the cut. So I'm temporarily sad again.

Aside: One of the first people I knew of my age group who ever got divorced, a friend in graduate school, once told me, "The worst thing about divorce is that you are always breaking the news to someone...." 

With a 100 film list, the realization of omissions comes in stages rather than all at once, thus elation is momentary but disappointment elongated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote Walter Sobchak:  "There are rules here.  This isn't 'Nam."  I feel queasy about tweaking the list further than the previously agreed upon optional Round 2 re-ordering of the Top 25.  I think any further reworking should be done with the next Top 100.  Retrospectively altering the list further because we're dissatisfied with the outcome verges on the morally problematic and dishonest for me.  Please don't get me wrong; I'm not accusing anyone of being dishonest or unethical.  That's just how it feels to me.  If we don't like the optics of the list as is, I hope that will spur fruitful conversation and introspection for the next go-round.

Edited by Andrew

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

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

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

I know this is the kind of last-minute idea that probably tests Ken's patience, but I think it would be interesting to present the list in chronological order, perhaps with an asterisk next to the 25 films that received the highest scores.

Discussion -- including spitballing -- during the discussion phase doesn't try my patience much. I do have less patience (I'm in education) of discussion that never ends or that that starts up again after decisions have been made and we are trying to move on to the implementation stage. It seems to me that we built in specific, focused times for discussion and ideating at various stages, and I'm pleased and gratified that people have felt free to throw out ideas during those phases (including this one) and nobody has become too attached/dogmatic during the discussion phase.

My root antipathy towards an unranked list or one ranked chronologically is that I just spent coin of the ream (within the last year) for an app designed to standardize past/future lists as well as sweat equity in data entry to move lists from the table format pages of the Image-branded lists to what we currently have: http://artsandfaith.com/index.php?/films/

From an administrator perspective, I value format continuity (even though we do change things on occasion). It just looks and feels less...sloppy to have a semi-standardized format. In terms of this particular list, I think the voting was informed (at least mine was) but the assumption of a ranked list, and there were/are certain films that I think belong in the Top 100 but that I don't see on the same level as other films. I think a list that begins Ordet, Passion of Joan of Arc, Andrei Rublev is more defensible than a list that begins 35 Shots of Rum, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Amadeus. Were I a new reader, even knowing that this list was alphabetical, and I saw a list that led with those films, I'm not I'd keep reading. 

And there's the water cooler/clickbait angle, which I'm not wedded do but is not a bad thing. I don't care much about the difference between 40 and 60, but I think there is a prestige factor to Top 10 (and certainly #1) that is liable to strike more interest than an unranked list of 100 films. The new or emerging cinephile who says, "Whoa, this is allegedly the most spiritually significant film of all time and I've never seen it...where can I see it?" is much more likely to become engaged than the one who says, "These are the Top 100 films and I haven't heard of 1/2 of them...." Similarly, I think a prospective reader might be more likely to say, "I'm surprised Do the Right Thing is on a list of Spiritually Significant films" but not think more about it, while the same reader might think, "Top 10? I want some sort of explanation....!" That's all conjecture, but just my 2 cents.

Edit: But one thing this discussion has prompted me to bump up my priority list is to ask RAW how feasible it would be to write a script that made the *landing* page for all the Top 25/100 lists a *random* film from one of the lists rather than just a static lists of all the #1s. (The menu of each individual list is on the right sidebar).

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

 And there's the water cooler/clickbait angle, which I'm not wedded do but is not a bad thing. I don't care much about the difference between 40 and 60, but I think there is a prestige factor to Top 10 (and certainly #1) that is liable to strike more interest than an unranked list of 100 films. The new or emerging cinephile who says, "Whoa, this is allegedly the most spiritually significant film of all time and I've never seen it...where can I see it?" is much more likely to become engaged than the one who says, "These are the Top 100 films and I haven't heard of 1/2 of them...." Similarly, I think a prospective reader might be more likely to say, "I'm surprised Do the Right Thing is on a list of Spiritually Significant films" but not think more about it, while the same reader might think, "Top 10? I want some sort of explanation....!" That's all conjecture, but just my 2 cents.

This, to me, is the value of the ranked list.  Not to harp overmuch on Magnolia (well, maybe a little more), but I think it's hard to argue that it's on the same level as, say, The Passion of Joan of Arc, The Son, or Ikiru. 

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, kenmorefield said:

I think there is a prestige factor to Top 10 (and certainly #1) that is liable to strike more interest than an unranked list of 100 films. The new or emerging cinephile who says, "Whoa, this is allegedly the most spiritually significant film of all time and I've never seen it...where can I see it?" is much more likely to become engaged than the one who says, "These are the Top 100 films and I haven't heard of 1/2 of them...." Similarly, I think a prospective reader might be more likely to say, "I'm surprised Do the Right Thing is on a list of Spiritually Significant films" but not think more about it, while the same reader might think, "Top 10? I want some sort of explanation....!"

As an anecdote, I'm putting the finishing touches on the first full draft of my PhD thesis, and in my introduction, I mention that the reason I discovered the Dardenne brothers in the first place is because The Son was in the A&F Top 10. If it had been in chronological or alphabetical order and unranked, I'm not sure I would have made such a discovery. Even as I can appreciate that ranking art is a somewhat silly and vain venture (as Joshua mentioned, how do you go about comparing Ordet to Stop Making Sense?), there's also something to be said about highlighting those works have really do stand out as truly significant, to point to the good and beautiful as say, "hey, you really should seek this out."

And as an aside, I agree with Andrew regarding wanting to do too many changes to this list now beyond what's been discussed prior to voting. There are certainly some disappointments, but there are also wonderful surprises and new treasures to seek out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Andrew said:

To quote Walter Sobchak:  "There are rules here.  This isn't 'Nam."  I feel queasy about tweaking the list further than the previously agreed upon optional Round 2 re-ordering of the Top 25.  I think any further reworking should be done with the next Top 100.  Retrospectively altering the list further because we're dissatisfied with the outcome verges on the morally problematic and dishonest for me.  Please don't get me wrong; I'm not accusing anyone of being dishonest or unethical.  That's just how it feels to me.  If we don't like the optics of the list as is, I hope that will spur fruitful conversation and introspection for the next go-round.

I concur. I think it's fine to discuss other possibilities for next time, but the best course is to follow what we agreed on beforehand. And it's not like this is a bad list at all, even if there are a few things we all would have liked to be different about 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

We had such an interesting discussion on the Zoom meeting. I hope those who couldn't join us will get to see that recording.

For the record, here's my take on the list (distilled from what I said in the meeting):

A) There are so many great films on this list.

B) I wish I had been more involved and that I had voted differently.

C) I am very, very disappointed in the 2-films-per-director list — not because of films that are left out, but because of how predictable it is and how lacking in diversity.

D) I am not quite as disappointed with the 1-film-per-director list... but still. 

It is what it is: A list representative of our community in terms of moviegoing memoirs. These are the faith-and-film titles that have shaped us and set standards for us. 

It isn't what it isn't: A list we present to the world representing the films that we think manifest "the best of the best" from around the globe and throughout film history. 

Thus, inevitably, the list is West-leaning, with most directors being white and almost all of them being male.

I would, humbly and respectfully, propose that we not go forward with publishing just this list — because it suggests that we are a community primarily interested in movies by men, especially white men. I don't believe that we are — but at first glance, a lot of people are going to disregard this list because they won't understand what it is and how the voting was framed. A very detailed, honest, blunt introduction is in order, heavily emphasizing the makeup of our voting board and the memoir emphasis of these votes. 

Then, I recommend we vote on another list: a more forward-thinking syllabus of sort, films we would like to see the world of cinephiles holding up as exemplars in years to come. This list should be deliberately and openly "rigged" to be global, recommending a multicultural vision with some deliberate representation of the best films directed by women. This is not driven by concerns about "What will people think?" — instead, it's driven by a desire to "be a people who" realize that the accepted canon of "great films" has, typically, been skewed to favor men, particularly white European men, and that we want to recommend a body of work from around the world and throughout film history — a body of work that will encourage greater attention to underrepresented communities and promote a more international appreciation of the art of filmmaking.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

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

I would, humbly and respectfully, propose that we not go forward with publishing just this list — because it suggests that we are a community primarily interested in movies by men, especially white men. I don't believe that we are — but at first glance, a lot of people are going to disregard this list because they won't understand what it is and how the voting was framed. A very detailed, honest, blunt introduction is in order, heavily emphasizing the makeup of our voting board and the memoir emphasis of these votes. 

 

Jeff, thank you for your passion and articulation. I want to preface my response by saying that for me, the most valuable thing about the Zoom call, by an order of magnitude was the reminder of something I knew/know in the abstract but that really sunk in: people's voices/tone are very different in online/e-mail interactions than in face-to-face (or even over Zoom). There are people I've interacted with literally thousands of times (looking at my post count and that of others) whom I have never heard audibly. There were others I had *read* an hour earlier but who inflected their ideas differently. It got me wondering if some things I read as arguments were really just kicking around ideas and whether others I read as ambivalent were stronger convictions. (Cue Deborah Tannen's entire canon of sociolinguistics). 
 

Anyway, prefacing aside, I confess that the very first thing I thought when I read the first sentence quoted above was the famous Bill Parcells quote: "You are what your record says you are."I would counter that we are a community primarily interested in movies by men. I think we are also a community that would like to be more interested in films by (and about) women and are trying to become our deeper, better selves. I'm not sure (really I'm not) whether that process of becoming is better achieved through (to steal a metaphor from Dallas Willard) going around and tying fruit to tree limbs or whether it is better achieved through the painfully slow and incremental process of cultivating the landscape we want to live in. (Hey, I feel like that metaphor is familiar; I wonder if there is a film on our list about that!). 

One thing that occurred to me, I think after you had to leave the Zoom channel, is that the more substantive changes you would like to see would, I think be impossible in the short term. It would probably necessitate starting over/starting from scratch. That, in turn, would have implications because of people's professional schedules and life phases and whether everyone would be able and willing to participate in an elongated "take 2." Plus I've signed a book contract, which is probably negotiable as to deadline but is not something I'd want to push back too far (as it would then interfere wieth another professional project.) So while I personally remain open to major revisions, even if they involve "moderate" delays, I'm not sure how viable I think starting over from scratch really is nor how likely it is to produce different results without  a much more directive approach that imposes a vision on the community rather than looking for one to emerge from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Overstreet said:

I would, humbly and respectfully, propose that we not go forward with publishing just this list — because it suggests that we are a community primarily interested in movies by men, especially white men. I don't believe that we are — but at first glance, a lot of people are going to disregard this list because they won't understand what it is and how the voting was framed. A very detailed, honest, blunt introduction is in order, heavily emphasizing the makeup of our voting board and the memoir emphasis of these votes.

I find this very compelling. Here is my ideal vision for how this list would be presented, at A&F and in the companion book:

  • The Top 100 with 2 films/director, based on the voting procedures we all used thus far, including the round 2 for the top 25. This reflects what's spiritually significant to this group, flawed and limited in perspective as we are.
  • A supplementary yet prominent unranked list of spiritually significant films directed by women (50?) beyond the six or so that are on the current list. An article focused on women in cinema would be ideal, too. Ken has solicited lists from us, and I don't think we'd have to think of this as nominations/voting, etc. Basically this would be a group effort golden ticket process.
  • A supplementary yet prominent unranked list of spiritually significant films representing regions of world cinema, with a focus outside the Euro-Anglophone sphere (though we should leave a spot for the Romanian New Wave!). Again, an article focused on global cinemas would be ideal, too, looking at different religions, regions. Honestly we could start with the 25 or so films on our ranking that fit this criteria but didn't make the Top 100. And we could add films from there. I see this could be more collaborative than collective like our process has been so far.

Doing this would be more work, a moderate delay. Particularly the global cinema list would necessitate some discussion about what to include. But I don't see that as starting from scratch or even have nominations or voting.

Here's a method, just to throw something out. We come up with a list of 10 films directed by women. Any film that gets mentioned more than once goes on the list, and everyone gets to pick one more. We could do something similar with the global cinema. I think that would help us continue to live up to our ideals as a group:

7 hours ago, Overstreet said:

This is not driven by concerns about "What will people think?" — instead, it's driven by a desire to "be a people who" realize that the accepted canon of "great films" has, typically, been skewed to favor men, particularly white European men, and that we want to recommend a body of work from around the world and throughout film history — a body of work that will encourage greater attention to underrepresented communities and promote a more international appreciation of the art of filmmaking.

 

7 hours ago, Overstreet said:

Then, I recommend we vote on another list: a more forward-thinking syllabus of sort, films we would like to see the world of cinephiles holding up as exemplars in years to come. This list should be deliberately and openly "rigged" to be global, recommending a multicultural vision with some deliberate representation of the best films directed by women.

I think Darren threw out doing this as a possibility but we decided not to. It would be a lot of work, but it's work worth doing. Maybe for the next Top 100?

1 hour ago, kenmorefield said:

One thing that occurred to me, I think after you had to leave the Zoom channel, is that the more substantive changes you would like to see would, I think be impossible in the short term. It would probably necessitate starting over/starting from scratch.

Right, this is why I think that supplementary lists are the way to go. They both recognize the flaws of the list we have but point toward spiritually significant films that are more representative of the best of what's out there rather than just we personally like. More work needs to be done (a LOT more), but we can start doing a little more of that now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And if the main laborers are willing, I would support doing another list in 2-3 years, where we conscientiously structure in diversity; just shooting out numbers here, but say, a minimum of 20 films by women directors; 10 African-American or African directors; 10 members of the LGBT community; 15 films from Asia; 15 from the Middle East; 15 from South America; etc.

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point was briefly made during the Zoom conversation that the limited number of women directors represented in the Top 100 is also a mirror of the limited number of women directors, period.  Going to the Women and Hollywood website, they state that of the 200 top-grossing films in the US from 2018-9, 15% were directed by women.  And that's doubtlessly an improvement from 10 and 20 years ago.  All that as a preface to the way I voted, which was to make sure I didn't vastly overrepresent films from the 2000s and 2010s.  In hindsight, I wish I'd been a little more balanced, in voting yes to more films by women in the 2010s.

All this to say, if the idea of creating supplementary lists to represent both women directors and worldwide cinema is too cumbersome to complete at this juncture, is it worth going back to the earlier idea of a golden ticket for each voter, with an eye towards greater diversity?  Or if it's preferable to use the Ecumenical Jury nomenclature, an Honorable Mention for each voter.

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, kenmorefield said:

"You are what your record says you are."I would counter that we are a community primarily interested in movies by men.

Apologies for not being able to join the call last night. Sounds like I missed a great conversation.

I wanted to second Ken's comment here and also suggest that we offer ourselves a bit of grace about this. As I mentioned earlier, the 2002 Sight and Sound Top 100 only includes two women filmmakers. I suspect S&S won't be changing their rules in 2022 but their voters (like we have) will certainly be paying more attention to gender representation when they submit their ballots. I also suspect the new S&S top 100 will illustrate incremental progress but not a whole-sale dismantling of the canon.

I've made every effort throughout this process to advocate for greater diversity in the list -- in the discussions, nomination process, and voting -- but 19 of my 25 6-point films were directed by white men. I say that as a matter of fact and without any regret. When I saw Ken's email yesterday requesting my top 10 films directed by women, I'd just gotten off a tense, 90-minute call for work and needed a distraction, so I decided to knock it out quickly. I wanted to include ten different filmmakers representing a variety of genres, and to be honest it was more of a challenge than I'd anticipated. Six of the ten were from the 2000s (seven if you include Beau travail, which was released theatrically in 2000). All of them are white. In other words, my top 10 is representative of the history of cinema, which for the first century effectively excluded women from the director's chair, and which has only in the past two decades made the means of production more widely available. My top 10 is also representative of my taste and viewing habits, which I've become much more conscious of over the past two months.

For what it's worth, I'm voting for one film per director because it addresses my two biggest complaints with the list. I really dislike the idea of giving eight of the top 25 slots to four people, even while acknowledging that those four have long been the patron saints of this forum. (My first comment on this subject, months ago, was something like, "I'd advocate for one film per director except that it's hard to imagine our list without Ordet and Passion. I'm now totally fine with the idea.) I also really like the added diversity of styles and perspectives we'll be adding to the bottom of the list. Having Ordet and Silent Light as bookends would make me happy.

Also, let's constantly remind ourselves that the list will be presented in context. Even the capsule reviews will be opportunities for us to address head-on the "problems" of the list, as we're discussing it now. Whoever writes about, say, The Son, will be able to mention that the Dardennes had three or four other films in contention. We'll all have opportunities to write about representations of women and non-white characters in the films, and about women and non-white people who were essential creative collaborators in the making of the films. We should all commit to doing the work to find and foreground those stories. I'd also be curious to read (and possibly write?) an article about how our list represents the inherent benefits and problems of canon formation.

Edited by Darren H
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darren H said:

Apologies for not being able to join the call last night. Sounds like I missed a great conversation.

I believe Evan made a recording (with permission) of the Zoom call, if you want to see it or any part ofi.

I don't know if this affects people's thinking, but FWIW, Gareth Higgins graciously offered to write a chapter for the anthology focused on diversity (or its lack) and doing some of the heavy lifting of contextualization. I'm not sure if that would be more appropriate as a chapter in section one or as the anthology intro. Technically I am contracted to write the intro, but I feel reasonably confident I could persuade the publisher to let him do so.

Also, Gareth and I spoke on the phone right before nominations started. He floated the idea that he'd like the book (and by necessity, this iteration of Top 100) to be committed to equal representation. I thought then (and I still do) that this was too big a shift too fast and that we (the A&F community, not me and Gareth) lacked the experience to make such a list meaningful and credible. I was concerned (and I remain so) that steps that we take toward diversity be authentic and that the list not come across as as--Left Behind like--newly woke people appointing themselves leaders and immediately lecturing the rest of the world. I say this as a university professor with a Ph.D. in English who has experienced his fair share of people saying, "You are a literature professor? Have you ever heard of....Henry James [or some equally canonical figure]?" or "You are a movie critic? My High School teacher showed us a movie called Rebel Without A Cause...have you ever heard of it?" 

Gareth floated on Facebook a couple of weeks ago his idea to do a book, more of a coffee table book, that was limited to one film per country, covering as many countries as possible. He seemed to think it was possible to do every country in the world, but I am dubious. The representative film for each country would have to be by a person of that country, about that country (don't know if that means filmed in it or set in it) and so forth.I wouldn't want to make this Top 100 into that, but I'd be pleased to see that project move forward and or for A&F participants to contribute to it. Anyway, you can ask Gareth for more details. He's in the e-mail chain for voting, but know he is very disciplined about spending a limited amount of time per day on e-mail so he sometimes sends auto-replies and delayed responses. But he does read his e-mail.

Edit: Gareth's books, at least his past ones, sell better and have actually made some money. I think the press he works with is more towards self-publishing, which is an issue for me (because education still doesn't value it) but affords much more control over things like price-point, number of copies in a run, etc.

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

For what it's worth, I'm voting for one film per director because it addresses my two biggest complaints with the list. I really dislike the idea of giving eight of the top 25 slots to four people, even while acknowledging that those four have long been the patron saints of this forum.

I'm torn, but I'm leaning toward this too, if only because, as I stated last night in the call, I think that the preoccupation with director and a kind of notion of auteurism is something I'd kinda like to move away from, and then we could make sure we highlight the roles that women played even if they aren't "behind the camera," in films like Passion of Joan of Arc or Frisco Jenny

I was thinking about the problem of auteurism and power and it really is to me about not "who gets to be the driving artistic influence" in a work of cinema, but "who gets to claim the role of artistic influence." Anyway, that said, I'm also against the kind of revisionism that Pauline Kael tried in dishonestly trying to discredit Welles on Kane...I digress. But anyway, I think as someone who is primarily a film studies and communications academic, I'd like to lean away from auteurism, even as I recognize it as a helpful heuristic for cinematic study in my own life and moving going memoir.

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

Twitter.
Letterboxd.

Reviews and essays at Three Brothers Film.

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

I believe Evan made a recording (with permission) of the Zoom call,

Yes, I did. I successfully uploaded it to Google Drive, and am happy to share the file with anyone who'd like to view it.

And I agree with everyone who's said we need to do something like that again.

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

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

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Anders said:

I think as someone who is primarily a film studies and communications academic, I'd like to lean away from auteurism, even as I recognize it as a helpful heuristic for cinematic study in my own life and moving going memoir.

And as one who embraces the "auteurist" label, though not as fervently as I once did, I find myself OK with the one-film-director list if only because - and sorry if this is pedantic, but I think it's worth reminding everyone - we'd already limited our list to two films per director. What's yet one more limitation, down to one? Yes, it'll hurt to make cuts, but in my mind, I/we already made cuts to the oeuvre of several filmmakers to get their contributions down to two. Had we not done that, I would've nominated/voted far more Bergmans, Malicks, etc.

So I see our evolving list as including an imaginary asterisk next to each filmmaker, with an imagined endnote/footnote that encourages readers to explore each filmmaker's broader output (or, in the interest of full disclosure, we could name - somewhere, I'm not sure where - the movies that got booted in the whittling down).

"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

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...