Jump to content
kenmorefield

1 Film Per Director or 2

1 film per director or 2?  

23 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ed Bertram said:

Ken,

The email I sent you said I voted for the 2-film per director list. I never wanted to change that. Perhaps my subject line was confusing. I'm sorry if that's the case, but I am standing firm on my 2-film per director desire.

Ed, Sorry, I did indeed misread your e-mail /message. I corrected the vote I swapped by accident.

To be absolutely clear, since it looks like this vote will be close: was your e-mail meant to inform me t hat you had already voted in the poll (and were just letting me know) or that you were voting to me in the e-mail (and the poll didn't yet reflect your vote)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken, thanks for your generous response, and my apologies if my question was trying your patience. I, too, am honestly a bit confused and frustrated by the process at the moment, and the multiple threads/emails coming at different times and from different persons is difficult to navigate. Some posts or emails sound like suggestions or brainstorming; others sound like major decisions have been made. It's difficult to sometimes discern between the two. While it sounds like the Zoom call was generally wonderful for those involved, I confess that my missing that call has made me feel quite out of the loop and uncertain as to how/why things have changed in the list-making process as much as they have. What seemed fairly straightforward beforehand (we have 2 films per director, we'll have an optional second vote on ranking the Top 25) has now elicited a new vote on two versions of the list (one of which could have either Ikiru or Red Beard in the Top 10, or The Son or The Kid with the Bike, depending on how we vote again...that is, if we vote again) a new Alt Top 100 of Films Directed by Women, and a general unease about the Eurocentricity and lack of women directors on the list in either iteration. And I'm unsure as to where I should post my confusion—it would probably be best in the "Discussion of voting process" or "Discussing the Results" or maybe even "Announcing the (Preliminary) Results." So, if the above paragraph is better suited in another discussion thread, please do feel free to move it there.

I'm trying to keep up with the various discussions and votes and perspectives. So, I'll continue to listen, seeking to understand and to be understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was swayed to vote for the 1/director list, but I feel like there should be a way to have our cake and eat it too.This gets at what Ken, Beth, and Jeffrey mentioned via email.

I too wish we'd just stuck to the original procedures we agreed on. But presented with the choice after the fact with arguments on either side, I'm not going to let those principles stop me from choosing between the two choices at hand, even though I'm rankled.

Just a couple reflections: I think the 2/director list has overall better films (I've seen 83) than the 1/director list (I've seen 79), and I think the 2/director list is a better reflection of the films that are spiritually significant to A&F (I say that not because I know the community so well but because it's how we voted). The list is more in continuity with previous Top 100s. As Ken said, the 1 director list feels different in kind than in degree. I agree. I would hope that the 2 director list could be published on the A&F site as a/the 2020 Top 100 list no matter what.

The reason I voted for the 1 director list is almost entirely because of the companion book, thinking of myself as a reader of that book. I'm not an expert or professional in this field at all, and I'm not concerned with how others will view this group because of our list. But if we want to offer a list of spiritually significant films to the world in a book, rather than in the context of this site (or previously, the context of IMAGE), then I think the more expansive, geographically-diverse list is better. Although I participated in making the list and have been regularly visiting and posting at A&F for over 3 years, I still think of myself as much in the audience position. I don't have the perspective of the long-timers (who I very much look up to) who wish the group had evolved more. That's just where I'm coming from. Anyway...  

If I came across the Top 100 online with blurbs, I'd find the 2/director list more helpful. But if I came across a standalone book via a library search or something, I'd find the 1/director list more helpful (supplemented by an appendix of films directed by women, too). And since it sounds like the book is happening for sure, I'm voting for the 1/director list in the hope that if it "wins" then there can be a 2/director Top 100 list online and a 1/director list online too but also to form the basis of the book (along with the films by directors who would have had multiple without the parameters set along the way). I hope this distinction makes sense to others. Sorry if we're all getting burned out with more possibilities. If nothing else, it's my working out in writing why I voted how I did, but I do think we can use both lists for different purposes.

Share this post


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

Ken, thanks for your generous response, and my apologies if my question was trying your patience. I, too, am honestly a bit confused and frustrated by the process at the moment, and the multiple threads/emails coming at different times and from different persons is difficult to navigate. Some posts or emails sound like suggestions or brainstorming; others sound like major decisions have been made. It's difficult to sometimes discern between the two. While it sounds like the Zoom call was generally wonderful for those involved, I confess that my missing that call has made me feel quite out of the loop and uncertain as to how/why things have changed in the list-making process as much as they have.

Joel, if you'd like I'll send you the link for the recording of the zoom call that I uploaded to Google drive.


"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
10 hours ago, Joel Mayward said:

 Some posts or emails sound like suggestions or brainstorming; others sound like major decisions have been made. It's difficult to sometimes discern between the two. While it sounds like the Zoom call was generally wonderful for those involved, I confess that my missing that call has made me feel quite out of the loop and uncertain as to how/why things have changed in the list-making process as much as they have.

gsd-wheel-1024x915.png

Hi Joel. A while back a friend and colleague at my university asked me to participate in his department's "Book Club" in which they were discussing Kim Scott's Radical Candor: [Subtite I forget about being a kick ass boss without losing your humanity.] One of the parts I found fruitful was discussion of Scott's GSD (Get Stuff Done) Wheel, posted above. 

I objected at the time that "Persuade" should be after "Debate" but before "Decide." As someone who has a strong "Blue" (Analytyical) Preference in Emergenetics (unrelated to Scott's book), I have a strong inclination to move directly and as quickly as possible from "Decide" to "Execute." To quote my Emergenetic guru, "Blues are information gatherers...until they're not."  In Contrast, for a "Green" (Structural) thinker or communicator, there is *always* more data to gather, always another angle to consider. 

Part of my friend's response, echoing Scott, is that persuasion is necessary and important after the "decide" phase in order to promote "buy in," especially from later arrivals who may be playing catch up. In a corporate environment, especially, the shift from "Decided" to "Execute" is often when a process/idea/or plan moves from a committee (either a board of execs in a hierarchical organization or a subcommittee in a flat one) to the larger membership. Time taken to discuss, persuade, explain helps make the execution smoother.

It's worth noting that this circle is ongoing. We have gone through it at least once for how to do the nominations and probably a second time for how to do the votes. In each iteration of the circle, my tendency is to want to clarify/decide/execute...but, sometimes part of the persuasion at the earlier stages, some of the getting of "buy in" has entailed assurances that I/we won't be too married to the process, that we will be open to "learning" and will listen, clarify, and debate in next steps. For example, Steven was concerned about not grandfathering the previous Top 100s in nominations even though we had already "decided." Part of buy in was an assurance that we would look at the nominations and leave the door open for adjustments if things didn't turn out as expected.

Jeff, I think it was clear in Zoom though I'm always loathe to put words in his mouth, wanted to scrap the whole thing and start over. Part of what I tried to communicate is that this was probably a non-starter...but we're still in the "persuade" part of the circle, and getting buy-in from people who are concerned about lack of gender or geographical diversity or may be disappointed how results shook out in other ways involves a pause between decision and implementation. To Jeff's credit, I think his e-mail attests to the fact that he accepted the decision that we weren't going to start over and is no longer debating that but *is* continuing to communicate honestly about what he'd like to see done, how he'd like to be persuaded to buy in. In another example, Andrew went from "There are rules here" and a proclamation that any alterations made him borderline "queasy" to actually being persuaded to vote for the 1 film limit by those probing and questioning the process.

I am conscious, of course, that it is important to get buy-in from the people who want to stay the course. They may not participate in clarifying and debate if they feel every time a decision is made, it can be too easily questioned or undone. 

I probably could do better at helping people understand where we are in the GSD Wheel, which would help them better understand how to participate and how to read what other people are saying and doing. Some of that is just the realization that things that seem obvious to me may not be to others who haven't read the same books, had the same conversations.

Regarding the Alt-100 lists (women, standard deviation), I chalk those up under "learning" rather than "persuasion." They are post-decision (and to some extent post-execution of voting) discussion of what we learned from the voting that will help us in the next turn of the GSD wheel which will focus on finalizing and rolling out the list. Some people are already thinking about and talking about how to present the list to the world, while others are, I think, still mulling whether they are persuaded that the preliminary list is acceptable or whether they'll only buy in if it has tweaks. Still others, I think -- I'm probably in this category -- are mulling process changes and may have more or less trouble buying in based on how they feel about the process rather than the list itself.

Share this post


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

To be absolutely clear, since it looks like this vote will be close: was your e-mail meant to inform me t hat you had already voted in the poll (and were just letting me know) or that you were voting to me in the e-mail (and the poll didn't yet reflect your vote)?

I had already voted on the poll. So, I assume the last adjustment  means that I have two votes counted now and that you will need to take one away. I'm sorry for any confusion I caused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ed Bertram said:

I had already voted on the poll. So, I assume the last adjustment  means that I have two votes counted now and that you will need to take one away. I'm sorry for any confusion I caused.

No, as long as you originally voted in the poll, we are accurate. I initially subtracted one from 2/film and added one to 1/film when I mistakenly thought you had changed your voted. When I realized I was wrong, I simply returned it to the way it was before. If you had been telling me that you were voting by e-mail, I'd need to add one to the 2 film tally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kenmorefield said:

No, as long as you originally voted in the poll, we are accurate. I initially subtracted one from 2/film and added one to 1/film when I mistakenly thought you had changed your voted. When I realized I was wrong, I simply returned it to the way it was before. If you had been telling me that you were voting by e-mail, I'd need to add one to the 2 film tally.

Okay. I'm glad we're cleared up on that now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned on e-mail the other night in response to an inquiry that it would be possible in the list formatting, to place alternate films by the same director in the the "subtitle" line of the entry. For those of you that are more visually minded, it would look something like this: http://artsandfaith.com/index.php?/films/year/8-2020-top-100/

I want to stress that this is just a mock up to show people what it would look like; I'm not populating the list yet and I've altered the permissions in the control panel so that only members logged into Arts & Faith can see the 2020 List. That should, I hope, avoid any confusion about someone coming in and saying, "Oh, they've decided on the #1 film...")

****************

I confess that one of the things that bothers me about maybe going to a 1 film/director list is that the title of the project has always been Top 100 (or Top 25) Significant Films. Gong from 2 to 1 (or more accurately 3 to 1 since the last iteration had a 3 film limit), feels to me like a change in kind and not just degree, it will have become, de facto, the Top 100 Significant Directors (ranked by their favored films). This strikes me as a hard bell to un-ring and one that cements the auteurist assumptions and leanings of the list in ways I am not sure we yet realize. (I think Triumph of the Will is a Spiritually Significant Film; I don't know that I want Leni Riefenstahl on the list of Spiritually Significant Directors; much as I love Stephen Frears, I think High Fidelity is Spiritually Significant because of Nick Hornby's writing, not Frears' direction. I voted for Won't You Be My Neighbor? because of the subject -- Mr. Rogers -- rather than the director -- Morgan Neville.)

Also, I note that several of the Top 25 lists have had multiple entries by director. The "Road Films" list had 2 and 3 and 5 and 6 belonging to the same director. I realize those are more one off lists that are more focused, but do think we'd be better off experimenting with the 1 film rule on a couple of the Top 25 lists before making that leap in the Top 100.

***************

All that aside, the above is meant to explain some of my preferences, not some of my decision making. We're on the cusp of the Decide/Persuade steps giving way to the Execute step, but I'm still listening and open to persuasion, both as an individual voter and as an admin. 

Share this post


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

I confess that one of the things that bothers me about maybe going to a 1 film/director list is that the title of the project has always been Top 100 (or Top 25) Significant Films. Gong from 2 to 1 (or more accurately 3 to 1 since the last iteration had a 3 film limit), feels to me like a change in kind and not just degree, it will have become, de facto, the Top 100 Significant Directors (ranked by their favored films). This strikes me as a hard bell to un-ring and one that cements the auteurist assumptions and leanings of the list in ways I am not sure we yet realize. (I think Triumph of the Will is a Spiritually Significant Film; I don't know that I want Leni Riefenstahl on the list of Spiritually Significant Directors; much as I love Stephen Frears, I think HIgh Fidelity is Spiritually Significant because of Nick Hornby's writing, not Frears' direction. I voted for Won't You Be My Neighbor? because of the subject -- Mr. Rogers -- rather than the director -- Morgan Neville.

Thanks for this. I'm coming down on the 2-films-per side for similar reasons, along with a growing feeling that changing course midstream is causing more confusion than it's worth.

Share this post


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

it will have become, de facto, the Top 100 Significant Directors (ranked by their favored films).

I think I understand the logic of this, Ken (emphasis on "de facto"), but, fwiw, it never would've occurred to me to view the one-film list in that light.

Share this post


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

I confess that one of the things that bothers me about maybe going to a 1 film/director list is that the title of the project has always been Top 100 (or Top 25) Significant Films. Gong from 2 to 1 (or more accurately 3 to 1 since the last iteration had a 3 film limit), feels to me like a change in kind and not just degree, it will have become, de facto, the Top 100 Significant Directors (ranked by their favored films). This strikes me as a hard bell to un-ring and one that cements the auteurist assumptions and leanings of the list in ways I am not sure we yet realize. (I think Triumph of the Will is a Spiritually Significant Film; I don't know that I want Leni Riefenstahl on the list of Spiritually Significant Directors; much as I love Stephen Frears, I think High Fidelity is Spiritually Significant because of Nick Hornby's writing, not Frears' direction. I voted for Won't You Be My Neighbor? because of the subject -- Mr. Rogers -- rather than the director -- Morgan Neville.)

I 100% agree with your thoughts here, Ken. (I might choose different examples. I think Dogville is spiritually significant, but I'm glad it's off the list. I think Chariots of Fire is spiritually significant for its subject and writing rather than its direction...)

But I feel like we're being asked to choose this NOT as just the A&F Top 100. If it were just that, I'd absolutely want to stick the the original 2/director plan--a list of films (not director's top films), different only in degree from previous lists.

It's for the book that I think the more geographically (and, obviously, directorially) diverse list of films is better list for reasons I tried to articulate above. If I think of someone who happened to find their way to a list of spiritually significant films on the A&F website, I'd want the 2/director list because of the films it includes. But if I was someone who happened across a book entitled Spiritually Significant Films, I think the 1/director list was better because of what it doesn't exclude (namely, films from Romania, West Africa, China, Israel, Mexico (2), and Thailand). If I pick up such a book, I'm going to be less concerned with the online community that it came from, and the 1/director heuristic is more understandable. And in the 1 director scenario if someone wants to write an essay for the book on Stalker or Joan or Ordet or one of the other  films that could get cut in the 1/director process (or, say, on Yi Yi which is a former Top 100 film whose director has a different one on the new Top 100), would the answer automatically be "nope"?

I'm just trying to see what the actual implications are for voting one way or another in the poll. It strikes me there are strong feelings on both sides yet also a lot of ambivalence, and I've also had a hard time keeping up as things move so fast. My apologies if I've contributed to wearing on anyone's nerves.

Just saying, but if it were up to me, I'd make the original 2/director list the 2020 A&F Top 100, and I'd make the 1/director list the starting basis of the book.

Edited by Rob Z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Rob Z said:

But I feel like we're being asked to choose this NOT as just the A&F Top 100. If it were just that, I'd absolutely want to stick the the original 2/director plan--a list of films (not director's top films), different only in degree from previous lists.

It's for the book that I think the more geographically (and, obviously, directorially) diverse list of films is better list for reasons I tried to articulate above. If I think of someone who happened to find their way to a list of spiritually significant films on the A&F website, I'd want the 2/director list because of the films it includes. But if I was someone who happened across a book entitled Spiritually Significant Films, I think the 1/director list was better because of what it doesn't exclude (namely, films from Romania, West Africa, China, Israel, Mexico (2), and Thailand). If I pick up such a book, I'm going to be less concerned with the online community that it came from, and the 1/director heuristic is more understandable. And in the 1 director scenario if someone wants to write an essay for the book on Stalker or Joan or Ordet or one of the other  films that could get cut in the 1/director process (or, say, on Yi Yi which is a former Top 100 film whose director has a different one on the new Top 100), would the answer automatically be "nope"?

I understand this, but I don't necessarily share that concern. The list itself is a much smaller part of the book, relegated, probably to an appendix or foreword, perhaps alongside other alternatives, and definitely contextualized by at least an introduction and possibly one or two contributing essays that deal with these questions. 

I'm not sure its possible or wise to have the book be about a different list, but as is the case with many anthologies, the list would be a starting place for discussion (i.e. essays) and not necessarily an exponent of our tastes or beliefs that essays had to in some way conform to. About the only thing I'm sure I wouldn't want in an essay is special pleading for individual films -- i..e, "The Spiritual Significance of The Godfather: Why it Should Have Been on the List.")

Quote

And in the 1 director scenario if someone wants to write an essay for the book on Stalker or Joan or Ordet or one of the other  films that could get cut in the 1/director process (or, say, on Yi Yi which is a former Top 100 film whose director has a different one on the new Top 100), would the answer automatically be "nope"?

That's a very good question, and, frankly, one I hadn't thought about. My off-the-cuff response is that I wouldn't mind an essay on Dreyer that went beyond the particular film on the list, but I am not sure I'd want an essay specifically focused on a film that wasn't on the list. As I write that, the section on particular films is suddently sounding a bit like chapters in Faith and Spirituality in Masters of World Cinema....

Quote

 My apologies if I've contributed to wearing on anyone's nerves.

You're good. Read my previous notes on patience as practice in being transparent and avoiding blow ups by occasionally taking emotional temperature and not as, "he's gonna blow!" warnings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The poll is closed, but I honestly can't tell from the presented results here as to which direction we've chosen. According to Ken's original email, 60%, or 14 out of 23 voters, would be needed to go with the 1-film list. It appears to me to be 13 votes for 1-film, 7 votes for 2-film, and 1 vote for no preference, which is...well, close, according to the 60% needed, but nearly twice as many people appear to have voted in favor of the 1-film list. Does this final number take into account those who changed votes mid-stream after already voting (a practice I'm quite wary of, but I suppose we're going with it), and any votes via email? This appears to be 21 votes out of 23 original voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning.

You may have noticed that the poll tally changed after the poll closed. Not a good look. Let me explain what happened.

  1. As Joel indicated, the results recorded only 21 vote of 23 possible voters. Thus we were over the 60% threshold but under the numerical threshold that I had set (14 voters).
  2. I contacted my Invision IT guy to ask if there was any way I could see *who* voted in the poll, both to ensure there were no votes from A&F members who were not part of the process. I heard back from him and am now auditing the poll to make sure it is accurate because a couple of people changed their vote. (See thread above.) I also am trying to discern by process of elimination who did not vote and see if that provides any insight. 
  3. When I checked the votes against the e-mail addresses Darren sent out, I could only find *one* person who didn't vote. (Don't want to say who that was for now.)
  4. That meant someone's vote wasn't counted or had gotten erased rather than moved when various people asked me to "change" their vote (Andrew and Evan) and when I mistakenly thought Ed had asked me to change his vote but he hadn't, so I had to change it back.
  5. That sent me through this thread, my Personal Messenger, and e-mail to confirm who had asked me to vote by proxy and who asked me to change his vote.
  6. In doing so, I realized I had not added the vote of one voter who informed me of his vote by e-mail.
  7. For the sake of accuracy, I'd like to confirm that Andrew and Evan did in fact ask me to change their votes. Andrew S. sent me an e-mail, but all I could find is Evan's post asking me if he *could* change his vote (from 2 to 1). I did change it, but now I am wondering if that constituted a request or if he was just asking if that was an option but decided against it. Evan -- did you actually decide to change your vote from 2-1? 
  8. Did anyone else ask me to change the vote they cast in the poll that I missed? 
  9. I sent an e-mail to the person who didn't vote to inquire. 
  10. Once I ensure that we have an accurate count, we'll be able to make a decision fairly quickly. Thanks for your patience. 
  11. Because of the optics on this, I'm sending Joel and Andrew S. the tallies by name so that no individual voter is outed against his/her will but people also know that I'm not just making stuff up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken: Thank you for your transparency. 

I sensed last night, late, that the vote was going to break away from the just-barely-hanging-on-to-a-more-than-60%-threshold 1 Film Per Director Side. When that hadn't changed this morning, I was relieved (being on the 1 Film side myself), but still nervous that something would undo that margin. And it has. This doesn't strike me as unfair, although I'm a little disappointed to be on the losing side. 

And now, looking at that single "I Have No Preference" vote, I'll better understand all the people who complained about Ralph Nader being on the 2000 presidential ballot and Jill Stein being on the 2016 presidential ballot. 


"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
1 hour ago, Christian said:

Ken: Thank you for your transparency. 

I sensed last night, late, that the vote was going to break away from the just-barely-hanging-on-to-a-more-than-60%-threshold 1 Film Per Director Side. When that hadn't changed this morning, I was relieved (being on the 1 Film side myself), but still nervous that something would undo that margin. And it has. This doesn't strike me as unfair, although I'm a little disappointed to be on the losing side. 

And now, looking at that single "I Have No Preference" vote, I'll better understand all the people who complained about Ralph Nader being on the 2000 presidential ballot and Jill Stein being on the 2016 presidential ballot. 

Christian, I'm still  not sure which side has "won." There was one voter that I could have *sworn* asked me to change his vote, but I can't find it. It's quite possible that I misplaced it since I too have been dealing with getting things in multiple places. Also, I still only count 22 votes, and I'm having a dickens of a time figuring out who didn't vote. (The e-mail have e-mail handles not A&F names, so I'm seeking help on that.) Before any decision if finalized, I'd like to understand better why one person didn't vote. 

I was only half joking when I posted earlier that we were in 2 Days, 1 Night territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the audit/handcount revealed another issue. 
In my initial instructions I said 60% of "23" because I remembered from memory that this was the number of people who submitted nominations. 

But we picked up two voters in the Round 1 who did not submit nominations but we welcomed aboard to vote in Round 1. Neither voted in the poll, perhaps thinking that I meant to exclude them by saying "23." I don't want to single anyone out on the forum, making them subject to lobbying, but I'll reach out to them today via e-mail and ask if they wanted to vote in this poll and if so which way.

Share this post


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

I was only half joking when I posted earlier that we were in 2 Days, 1 Night territory.

You weren't kidding. It's kind of incredible how this is working out. But who will be the Sandra in this situation? :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update: See, this is why audits are important. I found the source of one missing vote. Someone had initially voted "no preference" and then sent me a PM asking to change it from "No preference to 1 film." I had erased the "No preference" vote but not added it to the 1-film tally.

I heard back from the person who missed the deadline and he voted to me (for 2 film) by e-mail.

So that is 24 of 25 votes that I am sure are accurate and double checked. I am checking by e-mail with the last person who didn't vote to see if that was by intention of an oversight.

Ken

Share this post


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

I mentioned on e-mail the other night in response to an inquiry that it would be possible in the list formatting, to place alternate films by the same director in the the "subtitle" line of the entry. For those of you that are more visually minded, it would look something like this: http://artsandfaith.com/index.php?/films/year/8-2020-top-100/

I appreciate this use of the subtitle. I still hope the 2-film/director list is chosen, but if not, the addition of other films by the director has the appearance of an "honorable mention."

19 hours ago, kenmorefield said:

I confess that one of the things that bothers me about maybe going to a 1 film/director list is that the title of the project has always been Top 100 (or Top 25) Significant Films. Gong from 2 to 1 (or more accurately 3 to 1 since the last iteration had a 3 film limit), feels to me like a change in kind and not just degree, it will have become, de facto, the Top 100 Significant Directors (ranked by their favored films). This strikes me as a hard bell to un-ring and one that cements the auteurist assumptions and leanings of the list in ways I am not sure we yet realize. (I think Triumph of the Will is a Spiritually Significant Film; I don't know that I want Leni Riefenstahl on the list of Spiritually Significant Directors; much as I love Stephen Frears, I think High Fidelity is Spiritually Significant because of Nick Hornby's writing, not Frears' direction. I voted for Won't You Be My Neighbor? because of the subject -- Mr. Rogers -- rather than the director -- Morgan Neville.)

This is part of my preference for the 2-film/director list as well. However, I think your suggestion for the subtitle helps to alleviate some of this concern if the 1-film/director ends up winning. The honorable mentions associated with each applicable director help to communicate that we consider other portions of the director's filmography to be spiritually significant, but not necessarily the whole body of work. Since many entries will not have that type of a subtitle line, it also communicates that there are factors beyond the director's vision that we consider as we perceive a film's spiritual significance.

Share this post


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

But we picked up two voters in the Round 1 who did not submit nominations but we welcomed aboard to vote in Round 1. Neither voted in the poll, perhaps thinking that I meant to exclude them by saying "23." I don't want to single anyone out on the forum, making them subject to lobbying, but I'll reach out to them today via e-mail and ask if they wanted to vote in this poll and if so which way.

Correction: one of the new voters did participate in the poll. As mentioned above, I've now accounted for all 25 voters, verifying which 24 voted and that the tally is accurate. I've got an e-mail out to the non-voter to see if the non-vote was intentional or accidental.

FWIW, I am not outing anyone since we've both said so publicly, but from among the moderators, at least one (me) voted for the 2-film list and at least one (Andrew S) voted for the one film list. So whichever way the poll breaks, the side that does not prevail (I suddenly hate the term "won") should know that there is a voter from his/her constituency that has access to the specific people who voted on each side to know there wasn't any funny business.

Now I think I'll go watch this movie: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1027862/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate your precautions, Ken.  Though I ultimately voted one film per director, I'm still solidly ambivalent overall, and will be content no matter which way this ends up.  Despite aspirations for better representation, I think it's a solid list either way that speaks honestly to our evolution as a forum and individually as discerning viewers.


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
4 hours ago, Christian said:

And now, looking at that single "I Have No Preference" vote, I'll better understand all the people who complained about Ralph Nader being on the 2000 presidential ballot and Jill Stein being on the 2016 presidential ballot. 

For real. If we end up with 24 voters in this poll and one has effectively said, "I don't care," shouldn't the denominator be 23?

In the further interest of transparency, I'm surprised to discover that this one vs. two vote is the only part of the process so far that I've felt strongly about. I wish there were a clear winner in the race.

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...