33 replies to this topic

[Darren H]

Ooooooh, The Trial! Now we're talkin'.

[BethR]

David Smedberg, on 28 October 2010 - 07:35 AM, said:

I strongly ask that we not "grandfather" in outside lists that don't represent any faith perspective (such as Sight and Sound). The Christian faith perspective that we bring is what makes our list worth making.

I concur with David on this.

[BethR]

Ryan H., on 28 October 2010 - 12:13 PM, said:

I don't think we should grandfather in other lists. Grandfathering previous A&F lists is already cumbersome enough. Similarly, nobody should feel we have to nominate the "classics" (if you ask me, many of the classics have overstated reputations); we should nominate what we're passionate about and fight for it. We have no duty to choose the agreed-upon masterpieces of the critical community. As far as I'm concerned, the more surprising and unusual choices, the better.

I would hope to see some truly vibrant discussion about the nominees and the validity of each; that didn't happen so much last time around except right near the end, so we should brainstorm about how to foster that kind of discussion earlier on.

I do think we should have a cut-off for directors at 3 films. Personally, I'd bring it down further; two films per director sounds right to me, and it only further encourages variety.

Excellent points from Ryan here, especially about 2 films per director.

If someone likes the AFI or other "standard" lists & want to use them as sources for his/her own nominations, fine, but use some discrimination in picking and choosing.

Another reason for not automatically chucking one or more of these pre-made lists in is that a lot of the same titles/directors are duplicated from one list to the next. If the A&F list turns out similarly--fine, but let it be because those were our choices, not because we were following the crowds.

Ryan H. said:

Another thing: we should not be permitted to nominate a film from the last few years. ... I'm not sure what the cut-off should be, but two or three years sounds about right.

It seems to me that one time we couldn't nominate films from the previous year (e.g., 2010). I would be in favor of giving films at least a year to percolate before they're eligible. I could live with two.

Edited by BethR, 29 October 2010 - 09:48 AM.

[Ryan H.]

Darren H, on 28 October 2010 - 09:08 PM, said:

Ooooooh, The Trial! Now we're talkin'.

Glad to have some support on that one. I love Welles' THE TRIAL.

BethR, on 29 October 2010 - 09:48 AM, said:

Excellent points from Ryan here, especially about 2 films per director.

Glad to see somebody agrees with me on the "two films" notion.

BethR, on 29 October 2010 - 09:48 AM, said:

It seems to me that one time we couldn't nominate films from the previous year (e.g., 2010). I would be in favor of giving films at least a year to percolate before they're eligible. I could live with two.

Yeah, a year at the very minimum.

[J.A.A. Purves]

As still a fairly new participant in Arts and Faith (at least compared to most of you) I've never participated in voting or nominations for the list yet. I will say that I've found the Top 100 Films list very useful for finding great recommendations of films I'd never hear about anywhere else.

But I've always assumed the "skew" in the list was due to the fact that it's a Top 100 films that are significant for purposes of faith and spirituality, and not a Top 100 list of the greatest films ever made. This is true, right? Of course, you'd think great directors like Alfred Hitchcock should go in any top 100 list, but on a list for faith and spirituality? Perhaps not. For example, Rope might be the most spiritually significant film he's made (the whole film pretty much being a conflict between characters who believe morality is relative (and entirely based on survival of the fittest) and their professor who is at least suddenly realizing he believes moral law is absolute). But then Rope could also be said to be more philosophical than spiritual.

I don't know if I'd even try and nominate anything yet, but I look forward to following everyone's discussion on this. Should get some more good recommendations out of it, even when all the nominations don't make the top 100.

[Greg Wolfe]

Speaking of grandfathered lists, we began last year by putting ALL previously nominated films from past A&F Top 100 votes.

Should we thin the list of previously nominated films by excluding films that received no votes last year? Or something along those lines?

I believe we worked with a list of 370 films (past nominees plus films put forward during the nomination process).

If we stick to that policy the starting group of nominated films will only grow larger each time.

[Ryan H.]

Greg Wolfe, on 28 November 2010 - 02:51 AM, said:

Should we thin the list of previously nominated films by excluding films that received no votes last year? Or something along those lines?

Yeah, I think we need to. We need to have some kind of cut-off. And, of course, films that get cut off are free to be re-nominated.

[Persona]

I am hoping to trim the list of nominees as mentioned. I am also hoping for only 2-3 films per director. I could live with two if need be. I also wonder how we will decide which films per said director will receive nomination, for instance, Bergman: which two films of the current seven will we decide to nominate for the new list?

Darren -- I've watched many films you've recommended over the past ten years. Some have been great discoveries. Were you to begin starting threads on these films, or at least mentioning them by name, I might check some out. However, I'm hesitant to begin investigating classic American film. America's ego is already large enough, I think.

[Ryan H.]

Persona, on 28 November 2010 - 10:29 AM, said:

I also wonder how we will decide which films per said director will receive nomination, for instance, Bergman: which two films of the current seven will we decide to nominate for the new list?

I'd suggest this: we nominate as many as we like. The two or three that get the highest scores get on to the list and the rest are automatically disqualified. In other words, the "cutting" doesn't occur until after voting has taken place.

[Andrew]

Ryan H., on 28 November 2010 - 11:53 AM, said:

Persona, on 28 November 2010 - 10:29 AM, said:

I also wonder how we will decide which films per said director will receive nomination, for instance, Bergman: which two films of the current seven will we decide to nominate for the new list?

I'd suggest this: we nominate as many as we like. The two or three that get the highest scores get on to the list and the rest are automatically disqualified. In other words, the "cutting" doesn't occur until after voting has taken place.

What Ryan said - sounds simple and effective to me.

[Darren H]

Quote

Were you to begin starting threads on these films, or at least mentioning them by name, I might check some out.

I'll be sure to nominate a few, then.

[Ryan H.]

Persona, on 28 November 2010 - 10:29 AM, said:

However, I'm hesitant to begin investigating classic American film. America's ego is already large enough, I think.

Perhaps, but it's not as though America even pays as much attention to its rich cinematic heritage. What usually happens is that the usual suspects get trotted out--CITIZEN KANE! VERTIGO! ON THE WATERFRONT!--and many others lie neglected. That's not to say that the "canonical" films are necessarily undeserving of their place, but that American cinema history is richer and more interesting than just a sampling of the beloved highlights might have you believe.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Persona wrote:
: However, I'm hesitant to begin investigating classic American film. America's ego is already large enough, I think.

I dunno, weren't many of the American classics produced or directed by Europeans etc. who fled World War II etc.?

Anyway, I'd echo what Ryan says: Getting to know your grandparents can take you out of your "ego" just as much as getting to know your neighbours. Especially when you don't really know much about your family history to begin with. And especially when your grandparents moved here from other neighbourhoods themselves.

[David Smedberg]

Greg Wolfe, on 28 November 2010 - 02:51 AM, said:

Speaking of grandfathered lists, we began last year by putting ALL previously nominated films from past A&F Top 100 votes.

Should we thin the list of previously nominated films by excluding films that received no votes last year? Or something along those lines?

I believe we worked with a list of 370 films (past nominees plus films put forward during the nomination process).

If we stick to that policy the starting group of nominated films will only grow larger each time.

Sorry, I'm not sure what "received no votes" means. Does this mean everyone voted that they had not seen it? Because even a "1" (lowest) is a vote.

As for my suggestion, it would be to "grandfather" in all the previous year's eligible movies that received final voting higher than "3" average. This would probably make most movies eligible, no? I expect most movies received an average higher than "3" among those who had seen them. Maybe, then, also a minimum number of votes -- dunno exactly, maybe 10?