criterionforum.org

I don't see why it even needs to be a list project, just post about films you watch in the director's thread. The Lists Project threads often bring into discussion countless films that otherwise wouldn't be discussed on the forum. You can't really say that about any director worth doing this on

I don't think a director needs to have a large filmography for this to work. Take Malick for example. With no real consensus as to what his best work is, it would be interesting to see what the consensus of the forum is, and it wouldn't take much effort for someone completely unfamiliar with his work to join in.

I see Domino's point regarding how such a project wouldn't necessarily lend itself to uncovering buried classics, but I still think it would be an interesting project in its own right.

The bigger problem is the scarcity of many films-- most directors aren't as well-represented on home video as Hitchcock, and ranking doesn't work unless you've seen and rank every existent film.

However Swo, I think anyone certainly might uncover neglected classics from a beloved director in the process of watching an entire oeuvre. My point was that there's almost surely already a place on the forum to discuss that director and his or her works

Tom Hagen wrote:At the risk of veering dangerously into the realm of polls and lists, is anyone (preferably better with basic stats than I am)interested in averaging out the various rankings in the thread to arrive at the Forum's consensus?

I think it shouldn't be too difficult, using a weighting system, to arrive at a Top 10, at least, maybe even Top 20

domino harvey wrote:The bigger problem is the scarcity of many films-- most directors aren't as well-represented on home video as Hitchcock, and ranking doesn't work unless you've seen and rank every existent film.

However Swo, I think anyone certainly might uncover neglected classics from a beloved director in the process of watching an entire oeuvre. My point was that there's almost surely already a place on the forum to discuss that director and his or her works

Yeah, I think that all this project would add would be the ranking, and maybe some discussion in defense of people's rankings. If you look at the lists projects as being primarily a means to discuss films that you might not otherwise, it might not serve as much of a purpose. But I find the lists themselves interesting, as a snapshot of the forum's tastes at the time the lists were compiled, and useful for other reasons as well. For example, as I think someone else mentioned, such a list could be useful for helping someone new to a particular director get acquainted with their work.

And yes, scarcity of films is a problem, but it's a problem for any lists project really. I technically should see every film from, say, the '80s, before I claim to compile a list of the absolute best of that decade, but depending on the time that list is made, different films will be readily available, and different films will have been more freshly reevaluated, both by myself and by the film community in general. We're not setting anything in stone here.

swo17 wrote:And yes, scarcity of films is a problem, but it's a problem for any lists project really. I technically should see every film from, say, the '80s, before I claim to compile a list of the absolute best of that decade

As ridiculous as it sounds, the answer is of course "Yes." Which is why I don't put much weight in the actual final list itself (or lists in general really). I couldn't even tell you what placed what for any past list, it doesn't really matter beyond the immediate novelty. This is also why I think the Best Picture List Project is so much better, because 95% of the films are on DVD, and the remainder can be found if you know where to look. It's possible to see all of that finite list of movies and discuss and rank them, and it pools everyone's results from the same elements.

domino harvey wrote:

swo17 wrote:And yes, scarcity of films is a problem, but it's a problem for any lists project really. I technically should see every film from, say, the '80s, before I claim to compile a list of the absolute best of that decade

As ridiculous as it sounds, the answer is of course "Yes." Which is why I don't put much weight in the actual final list itself (or lists in general really). I couldn't even tell you what placed what for any past list, it doesn't really matter beyond the immediate novelty. This is also why I think the Best Picture List Project is so much better, because 95% of the films are on DVD, and the remainder can be found if you know where to look. It's possible to see all of that finite list of movies and discuss and rank them, and it pools everyone's results from the same elements.

Sir, I think you underestimate the worth of immediate novelty. [-X

Getting to your point, statistically speaking, yes, the Best Picture List Project is the least flawed, because it is completely tractable. Then again, in some years, you're basically ranking five films you wouldn't otherwise have any interest in if not for the project. Where's the fun in that?

In the end, I don't really want to run a campaign on this one issue. Let me just say that if enough people were interested in doing it for a particular director to merit tabulating the results, I would be willing to oversee it. But if not, I won't lose any sleep over it.

swo17 wrote:In the end, I don't really want to run a campaign on this one issue. Let me just say that if enough people were interested in doing it for a particular director to merit tabulating the results, I would be willing to oversee it. But if not, I won't lose any sleep over it.

For some reason, this statement is really funny when it's said next to the picture of Max Fischer solving the hardest geometry problem in the world.

swo17 wrote:Getting to your point, statistically speaking, yes, the Best Picture List Project is the least flawed, because it is completely tractable. Then again, in some years, you're basically ranking five films you wouldn't otherwise have any interest in if not for the project. Where's the fun in that?

But that's where all the fun is! How do you know they're not worth seeing until you see them? Already I've discovered a lot of great films I would never have sought out on my own, films that I too would have assumed to be bad or unworthy of a viewing. It's all about challenging preconceived notions about the Oscars with empirical evidence.

But you're right of course that if a lot of people on the forum want to create director-based lists, give the people what they want. I'm just playing the house cynic anyway

In the interest of satisfying Hagen's curiosity, I've gone ahead and done exactly what he asked for in the first place. I started at 40 points for the 1st tier films from each person's list and counted down, 30 points for 2nd tier, 20 for 3rd, etc. and I left out the British films since not everyone ranked those. Wouldn't you know it, there's a tie for first:

1. North by Northwest
Notorious (tie)
3. Psycho
4. Rear Window
5. Vertigo
6. The Birds
7. Shadow of a Doubt
8. Strangers on a Train
9. Rebecca
10. The Wrong Man
11. Marnie
12. Lifeboat
13. Foreign Correspondent
Frenzy (tie)
15. Saboteur
16. Dial M for Murder
17. To Catch a Thief
18. I Confess
19. Suspicion
20. Mr. & Mrs. Smith
21. The Trouble With Harry
22. Spellbound
23. Family Plot
24. The Paradine Case
25. Under Capricorn
26. Stage Fright
27. Rope
28. The Man Who Knew Too Much
29. Torn Curtain
30. Topaz

swo17 wrote:In the interest of satisfying Hagen's curiosity, I've gone ahead and done exactly what he asked for in the first place. I started at 40 points for the 1st tier films from each person's list and counted down, 30 points for 2nd tier, 20 for 3rd, etc. and I left out the British films since not everyone ranked those. Wouldn't you know it, there's a tie for first:

1. North by Northwest
Notorious (tie)
3. Psycho
4. Rear Window
5. Vertigo
6. The Birds
7. Shadow of a Doubt
8. Strangers on a Train
9. Rebecca
10. The Wrong Man
11. Marnie
12. Lifeboat
13. Foreign Correspondent
Frenzy (tie)
15. Saboteur
16. Dial M for Murder
17. To Catch a Thief
18. I Confess
19. Suspicion
20. Mr. & Mrs. Smith
21. The Trouble With Harry
22. Spellbound
23. Family Plot
24. The Paradine Case
25. Under Capricorn
26. Stage Fright
27. Rope
28. The Man Who Knew Too Much
29. Torn Curtain
30. Topaz

interestingly enough, although not in the same order I would choose, the Top 5 films are also my Top 5 Hitchcocks

domino harvey wrote:

swo17 wrote:Getting to your point, statistically speaking, yes, the Best Picture List Project is the least flawed, because it is completely tractable. Then again, in some years, you're basically ranking five films you wouldn't otherwise have any interest in if not for the project. Where's the fun in that?

But that's where all the fun is! How do you know they're not worth seeing until you see them? Already I've discovered a lot of great films I would never have sought out on my own, films that I too would have assumed to be bad or unworthy of a viewing. It's all about challenging preconceived notions about the Oscars with empirical evidence.

But you're right of course that if a lot of people on the forum want to create director-based lists, give the people what they want. I'm just playing the house cynic anyway

generally the older you get, and the more diverse the movies you've seen, the more you get to 'read' the opinions of movie critics/reviewers, the more likely you are to know which films you're most likely to enjoy/find rewarding.
Having said that I still find myself being surprised by films I wouldn't have expected to enjoy, and vice versa, but its happened very rarely in the past 10 years.

domino harvey wrote:

zedz wrote: Despite some initial intrigue, I don't think I could bear doing the 'alternative Oscars' one properly.

Oh c'mon, think of it as also working towards the completion of a future Fred Zinnemann Project

Oh, I was planning to save that one until after I was stabbed to death.

I'm surprised how few of the Hollywood Hitchcocks I've seen. Really only Psycho, Vertigo and the Birds. I suppose I'm making up for that with the British films though. (they're literally a dime a dozen) As for my reason for posting, why does The Lady Vanishes get so much love? It's not a bad movie or anything but even with his Brit flicks I don't think it compares that well. Also was Rich and Strange his first talkie? Either way I loved how he employed the cards as a device.

Blackmail is his first talkie (and the first british talkie), but there's a silent version too.

I've always wondered why Criterion hasn't continued to put out the films Hitchcock's made at Gaumont. (at least the talkies, we all know Criterion doesn't really do silents)

I understand that the public domain status of these films in the United States is probably a big part of the reason...but surely The Lady Vanishes and 39 Steps must have sold decent numbers?

Saturnome wrote:Blackmail is his first talkie (and the first british talkie), but there's a silent version too.

Does that do the card thing too? I really liked it as a device. Made the movie almost a book.

Any suggestions on any of these Hitchcock films and whether or not they are worth a view:

Stage Fright
Family Plot
Topaz
Torn Curtain
Under Capricorn
Paradine Case

Interesting piece on Hitch's Berlin apprenticeship and its influence on his later work...

Any suggestions on any of these Hitchcock films and whether or not they are worth a view:

They're all second-tier Hitchcock, but I quite like STAGE FRIGHT - any film with both Marlene Dietrich and Alastair Sim can't be all bad.
TORN CURTAIN is better than its reputation suggets, but its "romantic couple" have no chemistry with each other, which is definitely a drawback in a Hitchcock film.
Some like FAMILY PLOT, but I find its humor strained & more than a bit lame.
There's a lot of great perfermances in PARADINE CASE, but otherwise the movie's a bit of a snore.

psufootball07 wrote:Any suggestions on any of these Hitchcock films and whether or not they are worth a view:

Stage Fright
Family Plot
Topaz
Torn Curtain
Under Capricorn
Paradine Case

Stage Fight is enjoyable, and indeed second-tier; but there is one great reason to see it if you're a Hithcock fan, so do check it out.

Avoid Topaz like you would any other stolid bore.

This was a great Rouge article exploring the similarities between The Paradine Case and Under Capricorn.

For UK viewers, there's a documentary by Paul Merton on Saturday 28 February at 9pm, discussing the British films.

The Lady Vanishes precede this and Rebecca follows.

psufootball07 wrote:Any suggestions on any of these Hitchcock films and whether or not they are worth a view:

Under Capricorn is with I Confess, Vertigo, and Marnie, my favorite of all his films.

psufootball07 wrote:Any suggestions on any of these Hitchcock films and whether or not they are worth a view:

Family Plot
Topaz
Torn Curtain

I haven't seen the others, but Family Plot is cute if utterly forgettable (it plays more like an ABC Mystery Of The Week than anything else), Topaz is about two hours and twenty minutes of dreck with a few sprinkles of inspiration, and Torn Curtain is heavily flawed but fairly entertaining.