Criterion Film Club: Suggestions and General Discussion

[matrixschmatrix]

But dom, think about all the terrible power struggles required to 'contribute to the board', like when I became a Lists coordinator through the fiendish plan of 'being the only person who felt like doing it'

[Mr Sausage]

Considering titles are chosen by the members here from a list of randomly generated titles, I can't figure out a way to be more hands off other than giving the project up entirely.

[Black Hat]

Mod conspiracies???

OK.

[zedz]

Mod conspiracies???

OK.

Sausage is the one scowling behind Sting's left shoulder.

[Black Hat]

Good to see a board sense of humor. I'll go fetch my tin foil hat.

[swo17]

Some food for thought:

Here is a list of bonus films included on Criterion releases (generally excluding documentaries unless they are "famous" or have their own spine number). A lot of the films are shorts, but several aren't. Currently just about none of these are in the mix of films eligible for a film club vote (including stuff like Ray's The Coward or Kiarostami's Traveler). Should some of them be? And if so, where do we draw the line? For instance, we might make a cutoff based on runtime, but this could leave off some big titles like Antoine and Colette, Blood of the Beasts, Thursday's Children, etc. Also consider that the number of bonus films listed here represents about 20% of the total number of currently eligible films, so if we added all of these to the mix, most votes would probably include a bonus film.

Also, releases like Science Is Fiction or A Hollis Frampton Odyssey, which comprise numerous films, are currently eligible as just a single spine number. Should they perhaps be broken up some? Criterion tends to break releases like this up into programs, e.g. Painlevé's Popular Films, Silent Research Films, etc. or Frampton's Early Films, Zorns Lemma, Hapax Legomena, and Magellan. Or of course they could be broken up into individual films, though a lot of them are rather short. How does everyone think this should be handled?

[zedz]

Let's not make things more complicated than necessary. I'd say keep discrete releases as discrete discussion topics, and if one with multiple films on it comes up, we can discuss the multiple films (or not, if that's the way the discussion drifts). If A Hollis Frampton Odyssey comes up for the vote, you just know it won't be selected (unless it happens to be up against four Norman Mailer films), so those kind of releases are probably a moot point.

I'd suggest making an exception for any 'curated' selections. Personally, I'd love to see somebody put forth a list of just shorts, for example, but under normal Darwinian conditions shorts, extras and experimental films are so disadvantaged that they'll just be wasting a space on the ballot.

EDIT: Also, if we start giving every single film equal weighting, then we'll end up with a situation where there will be a very strong bias towards certain shorts-filled releases. You and I would be delighted with a situation in which almost every ballot includes a Brakhage or Frampton film, but that's the kind of thing that will drive the majority of potential participants away from the Film Club with the screaming abdabs.

[jindianajonz]

Personally, I'd be happy with anything that is at least a certain length (45 mins? an hour?) being eligable. Killer's Kiss would be fun to revisit sometime, and there are quite a few B-sides that I just never get around to watching; it'd be nice to have an excuse for it.

Or, we could just allow the discussion to delve into B-sides if it's pertinent. We already saw it with Le Deuxieme Souffle, where other Melville films were brought up for comparison, and most of the extra films are bundled because they are somewhat relevant to the main feature. What's the HARM in allowing the discussion to drift in that direction if that's what people want to talk about?

[swo17]

I was only talking about which films get thrown into the random title generator wood chipper, but zedz makes a good point about individual curators. And I agree that there should be no limitation on what films can be selected for curation, so long as they're readily available on a Criterion release. It's probably best to just stick with the status quo, but a note to future curators: If you'd like there to be a chance for discussion of a Criterion title that doesn't technically have a spine number/isn't listed here, your choosing it among your five selections might be the only chance it has to be discussed.

[Mr Sausage]

I agree with zedz: let's keep this as simple and streamlined as possible. If it has a spine number, it's eligible. When it comes to swo17's random number generator, titles with multiple films (eg. Brakhage, Frampton) won't be broken down, we can simple discuss them as a whole. After that, it's up to individual curators to decide if they want to follow that or focus on an individual film in a set. Supplementary films might get a bit lost, yes, but who's to say we can't have a vote on just supplement films at some point?

Basically, I think we should keep doing what we're currently doing.


Also: our next vote is happening tomorrow. Look for something in the morning.

[Mr Sausage]

This vote's theme is, yes, Japan! These films have been randomly generated (via swo17's arcane magic) from a list of all the Japanese films in the collection. Why Japan? Mostly because I thought it'd be a nice change from France, which has dominated our choices so far.

The poll will close in three days, at which point you'll have two weeks to track down and watch the film.

Again, you can change your vote at any time before the poll ends, so vote strategically.

[Mr Sausage]

Kind of surprised at how well X from Outer Space is doing. Are people voting for it because they haven't seen it, or am I missing something and there's actually a lot to discuss about that movie?

[domino harvey]

It's the only film this round that I have no interest in seeking out or revisiting, so I'm sure my streak of backing winners is coming to an end. I've only seen When a Woman and voted for Double Suicide

[matrixschmatrix]

I just like the idea of getting a discussion going over Eclipse titles, which seem to need it the most- plus, it's the only one I already own.

[swo17]

I just like the idea of getting a discussion going over Eclipse titles, which seem to need it the most

The first three films listed here only have about 20-30 posts devoted to them in their individual threads, so I think they could use the film club push as well.

I've seen all of these films, and while X is fun, it seems like the least likely to spark a lengthy discussion. My vote is for the Ichikawa.

[Michael Kerpan]

Kind of surprised at how well X from Outer Space is doing. Are people voting for it because they haven't seen it, or am I missing something and there's actually a lot to discuss about that movie?

I wish one could vote for "anything but X".

[YnEoS]

I think there probably is a good discussion to be had about X From Outer Space, but I'm not so sure that this is the best format for it. I think these type of films usually benefit from a larger industrial analysis more than random viewing out of context.

I voted for Fires on the Plain, because I haven't seen any of Ichikawa's films yet, and this would be a good reason to. I might change my vote closer to poll closing if no one else has any interest in that.

[matrixschmatrix]

It seems like this one is going to be a toss-up. Out of them, Fires on the Plain would be my second choice, but I also want to see what kind of discussion we could wring out of something a bit less meaty- if it's anything like The Burmese Harp, than it must be incredibly rich, which is both a reason to vote for it and reason to be more interested in the bigger stretch, to me.

[swo17]

Fires on the Plain is certainly a meaty film!

[Michael Kerpan]

Fires on the Plain is certainly a meaty film!

Long pig?

VERY different from Burmese Harp -- but of equal worth.

[HerrSchreck]

Fires On The Plain for sure!

X is just a silly, fun film. There's no depth there to discuss whatsoever, no metaphor a la Gojira, no subtext, just a cartoony sci-fun film. Nothing to get wrought and written about. . . please don't squander precious bytes! They cost money!!!

[jindianajonz]

I, too, would rather see something besides X. I originally voted for the Naruse, but this discussion is steering me towards Fires on the Plain (I haven't seen it but can only assume it's a prequel to Snakes on the Plain).

[HerrSchreck]

I've had Guilala for years and years . . . I even have a weird German dub of it-- but can't for the life of me figure out why so many are voting for it.

It's like voting for Son of Godzilla over Hara Kiri or something.

[movielocke]

I voted for X because it's the one I own (and I haven't watched it yet).

but if the theme is Japan (not France) shouldn't the right answer be Sans Soleil?

[colinr0380]

I'd really love to see The Pornographers get some more discussion with its beautiful uses of frames within frames showing the 'staged' indoor scenes of the film surrounded by 'real life' pedestrians and traffic! Which fits in with its themes of the fine (and arbitrary) line between 'decent society' and the 'behind closed doors' world where dirty movies or obsessional interests are fostered.

And that is just what the film starts off about, before the symbolism gets stranger and ever more stylised!