Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Andrew

    The Searchers (1956)

    Re-watched this one yesterday. Holy smokes, what a splendid film. Ford is so brilliant in getting us to like Wayne, and thereby implicate us in Ethan's racism, sadism, and rage (how the west was won, amirite?). Scorsese's summary (cited above) nails it.
  3. Andrew

    Tender Mercies (1983)

    Just giving this thread a bump. In preparation for making my Top 25 list, I'm doing a mini-binge of as many 2011 Top 100 films as possible, and this one impressed me just as much as I did when I last posted about it in 2005 (!). I don't think I could put it any better than Ron did in the second post of this thread.
  4. Today
  5. Yep, I'm seriously considering putting "I Am Not Your Negro" on my list - the need for diversity on our list is a secondary matter (though it still matters), but I think it's a brilliantly-crafted film, and it rocked me like few films ever have.
  6. Sorry it feels daunting to you. I suspect part of the reason is that you (and others) have an admirable sense of integrity and may thus agonize more than I will between choices 21 and 22...etc. I don't expect my own list will take more than an hour to make and if I have a brain cramp and accidentally leave off Ordet or something....well, that's what the rest of the community is for. I just view it this way ... i have 25 nominations, I just need to make them all at the same time rather than checking in over a period of weeks to see which (if any) have been seconded or which have already been nominated. P.S. Given that the EJ is on this site, I can add your honorable mention to the list if you have one. Deadline is more significant if/when list is published externally.
  7. The EJ was originally a project distinct from A&F -- it was actually an attempt to keep alive Christianity Today's misleadingly titled "Most Redemptive" lists after they went away from a stable of writers who voted each year to a chief critic and then to being completely outsourced. With Greg's permission (back when A&F was under Image management) I used the forum to organize or communicate since a number of jury members (but not all) were on A&F. Also, maybe Image Good Letters published results first year or two? After the first year the group (or representative of the group) that has Ecumenical Jury in film festivals (like Cannes) raised concerns that our name was misleading, so we had a lot of discussion about relabeling it. The consensus was that to simply call it the "Ecumenical Jury" would invite confusion with Interfilm (or whatever their organization was) and so it needed to be "The __________ Ecumenical Jury." The consensus was that Arts & Faith Ecumenical Jury made the most sense, but because my own relationship to the forum was...strained....at that point, there was some solicitousness about my feelings. (What if I brought the project to A&F and was subsequently banned again? What if the person running the jury could not agree on some points of management or publicity with the owner of the forum?) SDG was particularly cautious about wanting to be sure that A&F wasn't just taking over a "Ken" project. So it became A&F Ecumenical Jury, but with sort of a traditional understanding that within that context, it was Ken's show, and for a couple years, I would initiate procedures by message Greg, making sure A&F was okay with my running it again this year, etc. Obviously when ownership of A&F changed hands, that more or less solidified the Ecumenical Jury as an A&F property -- even to the extent that I could invite others (Joel has been immensely helpful) to run it without having to be careful that what was best for the EJ was in line with what was best for Image or in line with another administrator's vision for the site.
  8. I think over the past year and-a-half I've exhibited a consistent lack of interest in marketing or growing the site in any way other than just trying to keep it free, available, and the sort of place that the people who do use it enjoy. It is probably worth clarifying that my conversation came more in context of the book than the forum. Since I expect there will need to be some book contributors outside of regular forum participants, it is prudent to explore what would or would not lead others to submit. I would like to get a Call For Papers out while the list making is underway so that those interested in an essay can have some input into the list itself if they want to, but beyond that, I'm a bit like Peter -- we are who we are -- and most of my decisions are attempts to serve the people who are here rather than grow the site. That said, the issue of diversity is one that's come up multiple times over the years, and it's good to be aware of it. Even if that doesn't mean bringing in new people (I'm such a crappy evangelist anyway) it might mean being aware of the lack of diversity when making our own nominations and questioning ourselves about whether our lack of diversity effects things like perspective and how we define "spiritually significant." I don't think, for example, The Celluloid Closet has ever been nominated, and I probably will put it on my list of nominees. That being said, it may end up being easier to invite an essay that looks at the list through the lens of diversity (whether the author is a contributor or not) than to try to reshape the list to reflect a diversity that isn't currently present.
  9. I was reminded during a resent screening, that I always thought it was significant that the sing-along was to G-l-o-r-i-a which is the latin word for "glory," no? So the three are in some senses singing a doxology. Also, I noted the Solwal T-Shirts they are wearing in the morning vote have a sun emblem. Reminds me of Ecclesiastes where what the Prophet "knows" is true about God is contrasted with evil he has seen "under the sun."
  10. Yesterday
  11. This resonates with me. And I'd love to see the number of participants at A&F expand greatly, too. So I think it's great to invite folks to be a part of things here (as I did with a column promoting last year's Top 25 list), but not solely to have more Top 100 contributors. Perhaps something along the lines of "hey, we've got an excellent thing going on here, and what a great time to join, because we're making a Top 100 list, with a book of essays hopefully emerging from it." And if there are formerly active folks that we're still in touch with, this might be a good time to reach out to them, too.
  12. I've thought about this quite a bit as well, as helping foster an environment for open conversations about the arts and faith for people from a variety of contexts and traditions is valuable to me, and I think extending invitations to participate are, for the most part, a good thing. That being said, I'm also wary of both tokenism and invitations simply to get more participants whether or not they've been engaged with A&F before (this latter approach feels more like marketing than hospitality). Inviting members of the Ecumenical Juries makes sense to me, as they're all aware of what A&F is about, have participated in some aspect of the A&F conversation, and are folks who generally have seen a lot of films and could offer some interesting lists of 25 nominees (in particular, I know Noel Manning has expressed interest). If that seems like a good idea, I can send out an email for that when the time comes to submit lists, though I also don't imagine all of those film critics would necessarily participate.
  13. I'm honestly not being snarky about this, but: I wonder what kind of double-bill this would make with the Mel Gibson-produced FairyTale: A True Story (he has a cameo in it too), which also concerned children who make supernatural claims in the aftermath of World War I.
  14. FWIW, my one concern with the Top 25 lists approach is that I haven't really been much of a list-maker lately. Can't remember the last time I made a year-end Top 10 list. Heck, I still haven't picked an "honorable mention" for our last Ecumenical Jury list (and it's probably way too late to do that now, isn't it). The prospect of trawling through all my moviegoing memories and all of film history to come up with an all-time Top 25 seems kind of... daunting... to me. Rob Z wrote: : A Top 100 that contains or at least considered, say, Blue and/or Red instead of the trilogy isn’t missing anything as an Arts & Faith list in my book. FWIW, I'm one of the people who likes White the best of the trilogy (or at least, that was how I responded when I watched all three films together back in the '90s). I know Leonard Maltin might not be considered the most highbrow of critics, but White was apparently *his* favorite of the trilogy, too -- so I'm not alone in this! kenmorefield wrote: : I'm personally less concerned about bringing those people into A&F and converting them into regular *forum* contributors, though that's not a bad thing. But the Ecumenical Jury has people who contribute to its formation and by and by and large haven't participated in A&F much beyond that, which is fine. I dunno, the A&F lists are supposed to reflect the A&F *community*, whereas the Ecumenical Jury is something else, no? I don't think we need to jump through hoops just to contrive a different identity for ourselves. We are who we are. (And who we are keeps changing, but so far we have evolved naturally, not artificially.)
  15. Steven Spielberg Won’t Direct ‘Indiana Jones 5,’ James Mangold in Talks to Replace (EXCLUSIVE) After a long development process, Steven Spielberg is handing the directing reins on “Indiana Jones 5” to another filmmaker for the first time in the franchise’s 39-year history, Variety has learned. Sources say, while a deal hasn’t closed, “Ford v Ferrari” director James Mangold is in talks to take the job. Mangold has been put in this situation before when he took over the “Wolverine” franchise; 2017’s “Logan” was a blockbuster, grossing $619 million globally, and earning Mangold an Oscar nomination for adapted screenplay. Spielberg will remain as a hands-on producer on “Indy 5.” According to a source close to the filmmaker, the decision to leave the director’s chair was entirely Spielberg’s, in a desire to pass along Indy’s whip to a new generation to bring their perspective to the story. Harrison Ford, meanwhile, is still on the project. The actor recently made headlines speaking about the future of the franchise while promoting his latest film, “The Call of the Wild.” He told “CBS Sunday Morning” this month that he was “going to start doing ‘Indiana Jones’ in about two months,” and then days later told HeyUGuys that the project is still facing “scheduling issues and a few script things” and that “we’re determined to get it right before we get it made.” When Disney first announced the new “Indiana Jones” film in 2016, with Spielberg directing and Ford starring, the studio originally slated the film to open on July 19, 2019. Then it was pushed a year to July 10, 2020, and then delayed again to July 9, 2021, when Jonathan Kasdan (son of “Raiders of the Lost Ark” scribe Lawrence Kasdan) was brought on to take a pass on the script after original screenwriter David Koepp left the project. With a new director coming on board, the possibility that “Indy 5” will be pushed once more from its 2021 release date seems likely. Spokespeople for Spielberg and Disney declined to comment. . . . Variety, February 26
  16. It appears to be working now. I tried some editing on the post. Not sure why it's up. Please try embedding on another/different post sometime soon and let me know if issue persists.
  17. Last week
  18. Wow, a lot of water under the bridge since 2005... kenmorefield wrote: : Updating this thread -- some time after 2005...this board was acquired by IMAGE Journal and run for several years with Greg Wolfe as principal administrator. I believe Image acquired the board in 2009, which was a, shall we say, eventful year for a number of us both here and off-board.
  19. I was speaking to a long-time friend about this project the other day, and and he expressed a concern for diversity (racial/gender, other) in the voters for such a list. That sometimes feels like a Catch-22 -- people may feel more comfortable contributing if the group is more diverse, but the group will never be diverse until more diverse people are willing/comfortable to participate. That's a way of saying, though, with Darren't proposed initial format, this could be an opportunity to invite friends/colleagues to contribute nominations. I'm personally less concerned about bringing those people into A&F and converting them into regular *forum* contributors, though that's not a bad thing. But the Ecumenical Jury has people who contribute to its formation and by and by and large haven't participated in A&F much beyond that, which is fine.
  20. I was specifically thinking of a Veteran's Committee only for the narrow mandate of grandparenting or including in nominations films that somehow slipped through the cracks. While I think that idea is possible/workable, I think I hear a slight preference for a wait-and-see approach. If we are dissatisfied with the collective nominees after the independent lists, we could revisit what to do about it.
  21. Since the participants thus far have been folks knowledgeable about their film history, the only place where I could see the necessity of a veterans committee would be in a preventative capacity. Say, a fly-by-night member or group of trolls attempted to add a Pureflix film or a mediocre bit of atheist propaganda like The Unbelievers. I think having a veterans committee that operated with complete transparency might be good to have on standby, just in case. I think, otherwise, the issues addressed by the erstwhile Nominating Committee (number of films per director, etc.) can be addressed in discussion here.
  22. AFAIK, there have not been restrictions on documentaries. Rob mentioned a few already; the 2010 list also had The House is Black and Frisbee: The Life and Death of a Hippie Preacher. Regarding the limitations on filmmakers, I notice that the 2010 list includes *five* of the Dardennes films (which was all of their major films at the time) and *six* Tarkovsky films. Regarding the grandfathering of nominees and Ken's idea of a "Veteran's" group who decide those, this post from Anna in the 2010 list-making process suggests that a similar idea was done in the past:
  23. I believe the 2011 Top 100 list includes Born into Brothels and The Story of the Weeping Camel (the latter of which is partially scripted/reenacted, I think, but still a documentary). And Into Great Silence. Maybe others?
  24. Have there been rules/restrictions against documentaries in the past, or is it just that the community does not nominate them? (I see 2019 Growing Older has 35 Up and Faces Places and Gleaners & I. I am thinking of the Top 100 lists.)
  25. Posting quickly from a fest . . . Fwiw, I'm open to the idea of grandfathering in a handful of films before submitting Top 25s -- kind of like how on the final round of Wheel of Fortune they give contestants R S T L N E.
  26. Being contrarian is okay. One of my operating goals when I bought the site was to try to create a space where disagreement was acceptable. I sense(d) that if A&F would survive to become something other than an archive of content, that would be important. (Primarily because I really don't care for the scapegoating tendencies of social media or insular communities.) I remember doing some communication training a few years ago. I won't bore people with all the details, but one thing that stuck in my head and resonated very deeply was tgat differences in thinking and communication preferences make planning and brainstorming landmines for conflict. Part of this is because certain types view new ideas as interruptions (or even criticisms) that *should* have been brought up earlier or mean resetting the whole process. They are often anxious to come to a decision and begin implementation. Others people view the former types as trying to bulldoze the process and ignore input of others. They sometimes feel shut out or not heard/included. My profile was weird in that I had preferences in both styles, which sometimes means I'm in conflict with myself but can also mean that I can mitigate against each preference's potential downsides (there are also upsides, but I don't get into that here) by trying to have really defined parameters for brainstorming/ideation. It's not my natural tendency, but even if an idea seems to have a consensus, training and experience tells me to wait a beat or two before implementation. Some people process ideas slower, are more are reluctant to speak up, etc. In this case, Darren offered a new idea fairly late in the process -- and we are the better for it. People liked it, and his willingness to articulate it helped others to put their finger on what they did or did not want the process to be. The grandparenting thing in general (and The Dekalog exception specifically) pushes some of my buttons. All the more reason to listen carefully to make sure I am not just being reactive and hearing what I want to hear.
  27. I think you're right, and I have no problem accepting that. I'll just say that, conversely to Ken, I don't really get the argument for not considering this one exception Not that I need one. A list with The Tree of Life instead of Dekalog is certainly still a good one! I guess I shouldn't be surprised to find that Ebert considered those to be some of the greatest, since they are in my book, too! 1. Grandfathering (or grandparenting...) can serve two purposes. It can make the nominations process easier since certain films likely to be nominated will be already included. It's a convenience. Submitting blind lists will also streamline this process. But grandfathering some films would make the kind of tactical nominating Ken describes less likely or necessary. The other purpose it could serve is to make sure that a wider group of films get considered for voting. The way I see it, grandfathering some films would be one mechanism to ensure the latter, and that's the bigger issue. I am not at all attached to the idea of grandfathering films from the old lists. I, like Joel and others, find starting from scratch appealing. And I like the idea of submitting lists for nominations. But duplicates could result in a lot of "wasted" nominations, and films worthy of consideration could get left out. I guess I prefer a nominations process like the old way because that is a little more straightforward and gives us what we'll know covers the full range of films we might want to consider for the voting list. I'd rather consider as many films as possible and let the voting, rather than the nominations process, weed films out. I at least favor a stage after we submit our lists to suggest some more to be considered, as has been suggested. Sorry, I don't mean to be a contrarian! Just trying to articulate my thoughts. I don't have strong feelings on golden ticket or honorable mentions, but I think Ken makes a good point. A list of 100 films is a lot even without honorable mentions. Deciding later on films per director is fine. I think 3 or 4 seems right. Two is too few, but I do think some limit makes sense.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...