Author Topic: 4th Annual Filmspotters Top 100 - Comments  (Read 33810 times)

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 20637
Re: 4th Annual Filmspotters Top 100 - Comments
« Reply #400 on: December 25, 2011, 10:12:02 PM »
Well for me, I'm finding that on average I probably am more likely to connect with the vision coming from a female director than a male director. I just find I have to work harder to identify female directed films worth trying.

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 18406
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: 4th Annual Filmspotters Top 100 - Comments
« Reply #401 on: December 25, 2011, 10:12:39 PM »
We are confident that XX has as much to say as XY.  If giving a shout out to their films, to give other XX's a chance to speak, then we are willing to make that sacrifice.

I think my point about general attitudes on this forum are kind of encapsulated by your post - grouping women directors together as a group in a kind of faux-liberalism. Just because one woman makes a good film doesn't meant every woman who wants to should be able to make a film purely because their link to a past success is that they happen to fall in the right half of the population. Cinema should be interested in interesting film-makers, regardless of anything else.

I agree.  And if there are as many women who have a solid voice as men, then they-- as a group-- are not being given the opportunity.  This isn't faux-liberalism (although it might be the real thing)-- it is giving an opportunity to those who have not been given opportunity.  Unless you think that, in general, men make better directors, then there is something seriously wrong in the studio system.
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

Shaw13

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 221
Re: 4th Annual Filmspotters Top 100 - Comments
« Reply #402 on: December 25, 2011, 10:20:09 PM »
We are confident that XX has as much to say as XY.  If giving a shout out to their films, to give other XX's a chance to speak, then we are willing to make that sacrifice.

I think my point about general attitudes on this forum are kind of encapsulated by your post - grouping women directors together as a group in a kind of faux-liberalism. Just because one woman makes a good film doesn't meant every woman who wants to should be able to make a film purely because their link to a past success is that they happen to fall in the right half of the population. Cinema should be interested in interesting film-makers, regardless of anything else.

I agree.  And if there are as many women who have a solid voice as men, then they-- as a group-- are not being given the opportunity.  This isn't faux-liberalism (although it might be the real thing)-- it is giving an opportunity to those who have not been given opportunity.  Unless you think that, in general, men make better directors, then there is something seriously wrong in the studio system.

Agreed on all about there not being faux-liberalism as I genuinely believe film's by female directors get better reviews around here solely because it was directed by a women, as if that will make the reviewer feel better about the industry and themselves.

sdb_1970

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2288
Re: 4th Annual Filmspotters Top 100 - Comments
« Reply #403 on: December 25, 2011, 10:36:19 PM »
In my limited experience, in most instances when a woman's "voice" is determined by the gods of film theory to be "disinguishable," the film tends to wear the social/political agenda on its sleave, which happens to be one of my pet peaves.  Such films invariably end up being exercises in preaching to the converted.  If you are going to make a film that so explicitly lays out a specific victim-archetype in its preview (e.g., poor, young, African-American, lesbian in 'Pariah'), then don't expect to get your "message" out beyond the art movie houses on the coasts.  (And maybe Dee Rees only has one narrow audience in mind.)  But previews like 'Pariah' tell me that there will not be many dimensions to the character, and I am usually right (in my own opinion).  To me, the worst sin that a film can commit is being both predictable and uninteresting (and that goes for victimhood-porn like 'Precious' as much as it does for comic book fare like 'Iron Man').

That said, I have been a big fan of Kelly Reichhardt since 'Wendy and Lucy,' Sofia Coppola since 'Virgin Suicides,' and Kathryn Bigelow since 'Near Dark.'
letterboxd

[insert pithy expression of false modesty here]

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 18406
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: 4th Annual Filmspotters Top 100 - Comments
« Reply #404 on: December 25, 2011, 10:46:10 PM »
And my great reviews for Reichardt's films have nothing to do with her being a woman-- they are great films, and deserve the praise.

I don't think anyone gives more positive reviews for women because they are women.  But certainly we encourage people to check out films by female directors.
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

Wilson

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3095
Re: 4th Annual Filmspotters Top 100 - Comments
« Reply #405 on: July 27, 2012, 08:25:09 AM »
Almost time for the 2012 edition.

The voting and layout has changed a lot since the 1st year, for the better I feel but I am looking for your feedback as this is as much of a community exercise as anything else.

Does anybody have any problems/suggestions/general queries regarding the voting structure?  I've been using the same structure for the last 3 years and it has provided mostly consistent results.

I don't necessarily want to change it, just to change it. However, I am wary that people may be getting bored and the top 100 might be a little stagnant.

Other general questions I'm interested in:

1) First and foremost, do we want a new top 100 this year?  Are people happy to continue with this being an annual thing?

2) Is a top 100 enough?  Do people want to extend it?  If so, what should we extend it to?

3) Should mini-series be included?  I have always went along with the theory that a mini series is not a movie, and thus shouldn't be included, but I am open to it if enough people want it.

Feel free to use this as a jump off for discussion of anything top 100 related.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2012, 08:26:59 AM by Wilson »

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 16221
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: 4th Annual Filmspotters Top 100 - Comments
« Reply #406 on: July 27, 2012, 08:38:30 AM »
1) First and foremost, do we want a new top 100 this year?  Are people happy to continue with this being an annual thing?

2) Is a top 100 enough?  Do people want to extend it?  If so, what should we extend it to?

3) Should mini-series be included?  I have always went along with the theory that a mini series is not a movie, and thus shouldn't be included, but I am open to it if enough people want it.

1) Oh hell yes, I've been working on it.

2) 100 is good.  With the spreadsheet made available, people can see the runner-ups if they're curious.

3) I say yes.  Miniseries (and TV movies) are conceived and constructed much in the same way as theatrical films.
Switchboard
Watched 2019

Top 250  |  Great  |  Good  |  Fair  |  Poor  |  Crap

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 31300
  • Marathon Man
Re: 4th Annual Filmspotters Top 100 - Comments
« Reply #407 on: July 27, 2012, 08:44:44 AM »
I think the voting structure has always been fair.

1) First and foremost, do we want a new top 100 this year?  Are people happy to continue with this being an annual thing?

2) Is a top 100 enough?  Do people want to extend it?  If so, what should we extend it to?

3) Should mini-series be included?  I have always went along with the theory that a mini series is not a movie, and thus shouldn't be included, but I am open to it if enough people want it.

1) Yes. Even with our other projects, if we skipped a year I think we'd miss it.

2) Agree with Martin. 100 is the right number, but I'd like to know the next 10-50 that missed the cut.

3) While the line is blurring between movie and TV Movie and Miniseries, I still see them as a separate category. This gets murkier if you include films that went straight to DVD, getting only an international release or no release at all.
Must See  |  Should See  |  Good  |  Mixed  |  Bad

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 20637
Re: 4th Annual Filmspotters Top 100 - Comments
« Reply #408 on: July 27, 2012, 08:46:27 AM »
I recently updated my top-100 so I'll certainly send it in but otherwise I'm not sure I'll invest much into the process. I'm more keen about updating the animation list but with retrospots and brackets going I'm not sure how much involvement that would get. I sometimes think we make too big a deal out of our lists in these things...feeling like we have to watch a ton of new stuff or otherwise having people feel like they aren't well versed enough to participate.

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 18406
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: 4th Annual Filmspotters Top 100 - Comments
« Reply #409 on: July 27, 2012, 10:19:57 AM »
I agree with 1SO and Martin.  Annual is good, 100 is the right number (for some people, 100 is pretty overwhelming), and even though there's a miniseries I'd love to see ranked high, that's a different art form.

Although, in the end, what is the difference between a six hour movie and a miniseries?
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky