Jump to content

2011 Methodology


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

In an interstellar burst, I am back to save the Universe.

Filmsweep by Persona. 2013 Film Journal. IlPersona.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

That's just how eye roll.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...