criterionforum.org

This year's additions offer the usual mix of "what the fuck" (Forrest Gump, El Mariachi, Stand and Deliver) and "it's about time" (The Kid, The Iron Horse, The Big Heat). The link has the LoC descriptions and rationales for inclusion.

Allures (1961)
Bambi (1942)
The Big Heat (1953)
A Computer Animated Hand (1972)
Crisis: Behind a Presidential Commitment (1963)
The Cry of the Children (1912)
A Cure for Pokeritis (1912)
El Mariachi (1992)
Faces (1968)
Fake Fruit Factory (1986)
Forrest Gump (1994)
Growing Up Female (1971)
Hester Street (1975)
I, An Actress (1977)
The Iron Horse (1924)
The Kid (1921)
The Lost Weekend (1945)
The Negro Soldier (1944)
Nicholas Brothers Family Home Movies (1930s-40s)
Norma Rae (1979)
Porgy and Bess (1959)
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Stand and Deliver (1988)
Twentieth Century (1934)
The War of the Worlds (1953)

What's WTF about El Mariachi? It's historically important (in how it fits into the '90s independent movement), good, and from a notable director. Glad to see Haskin get in. A Cure for Pokeritis is a piece of shit, but probably deserves it.

knives wrote:What's WTF about El Mariachi? It's historically important (in how it fits into the '90s independent movement), good, and from a notable director.

I'll concede the first point and agree to disagree on the latter two. It's been over 15 years since I last watched it, so what do I know? I'm sure that its storied production history was the impetus for its inclusion.

Agreeing to disagree is the best sort of agreement. I'm the most excited over the Lang and Hawks as especially the Hawks deserves a higher profile.

What's WTF about Gump? It's a best picture winner, it was critically well received, made a ton of money, and most importantly it's a very American movie.

Bill Thompson wrote: it was critically well received

No, there were and still are quite a few detractors of it. And rightfully so.

I guess that since the qualifications are that the film should be "culturally, historically or aesthetically" significant, they've got enough leeway to include pretty much whatever they want, and probably intend to include most best picture winners at some point. I just think that Forrest Gump is kind of awful, and could think of a couple thousand films I would rather see them preserve as part of our cinematic heritage. After further reading though, I see that artistic merit isn't really something that they consider, so my editorial comments should probably just be disregarded.

Porgy and Bess needs preserving, as I'm sure the Gershwin estate would rather it not see the light of day

domino harvey wrote:Porgy and Bess needs preserving, as I'm sure the Gershwin estate would rather it not see the light of day

That was the most exciting inclusion for me, as it has been suppressed for so long. The LoC preservation print might one day be all that's left of it.

The press release is now available.

Bill Thompson wrote:What's WTF about Gump? It's a best picture winner, it was critically well received, made a ton of money, and most importantly it's a very American movie.

I think it's inclusion is inexplicable because the movie is less than twenty years old and is a big, profitable catalogue title for Paramount, so it's hardly crying out for preservation, unlike thousands of other titles. I feel the same way about past inclusions like Alien or Beauty and the Beast. Porgy and Bess, on the other hand, is exactly the kind of movie a film preservation program should be pursuing.

Numero Trois wrote:No, there were and still are quite a few detractors of it. And rightfully so.

You'll notice I didn't say "critically 100% well received." It was critically well received, sure, it had its detractors, but on the whole it was critically well received.

Highway 61 wrote:I think it's inclusion is inexplicable because the movie is less than twenty years old and is a big, profitable catalogue title for Paramount, so it's hardly crying out for preservation, unlike thousands of other titles. I feel the same way about past inclusions like Alien or Beauty and the Beast. Porgy and Bess, on the other hand, is exactly the kind of movie a film preservation program should be pursuing.

The precedence has been set, and regardless of what anyone thinks of the type of film Gump is or its quality, it is a film that screams out for this type of treatment simply because of its subject matter and the popularity it garnered (both critically and financially).

Bill Thompson wrote:You'll notice I didn't say "critically 100% well received." It was critically well received, sure, it had its detractors, but on the whole it was critically well received.

...the popularity it garnered (both critically and financially).

Again, it turns out they don't really take quality into consideration, so I suppose it's kind of a moot point, but I wouldn't even say that it was overall "critically well received."

Rotten Tomatoes has it ranked as the 62nd highest rated movie of 1994 and describes the critical consensus as, "An overly sentimental film with a somewhat problematic message, but its sweetness and charm are occasionally enough to approximate true depth and grace."

As you say though, lots of people went to see it and it won Best Picture, and that makes it a significant contributor to American culture in the minds of the committee. I'll just bite my tongue when Crash, Titanic, and Driving Miss Daisy are inducted.

Jeff wrote:

domino harvey wrote:Porgy and Bess needs preserving, as I'm sure the Gershwin estate would rather it not see the light of day

That was the most exciting inclusion for me, as it has been suppressed for so long. The LoC preservation print might one day be all that's left of it.

Good news:

Dave Kehr wrote:The reason the film has been out of release is an ongoing battle between the Gershin estate and the Goldwyn heirs, which has recently been settled — just in time, as the negative was languishing in a storage warehouse and was about to disintegrate. There should be a major reissue in the near future.

dadaistnun wrote:Good news:

Dave Kehr wrote:The reason the film has been out of release is an ongoing battle between the Gershin estate and the Goldwyn heirs, which has recently been settled — just in time, as the negative was languishing in a storage warehouse and was about to disintegrate. There should be a major reissue in the near future.

Wow! That is AMAZING news. Didn't really think it would ever see the light of day. Wish there were more details. I assume that MGM is now the U.S. distributor. Shame that they don't have any money to put into a restoration. I wonder if The Film Foundation, UCLA, or someone else will be pitching in.

You can now nominate films for the Library of Congress' National Film Preservation Board's registry. If you have a film in mind, check to see if it's been selected first, then mail or email them your nomination. Deadline is September 28.

2012 Additions:

3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Anatomy of a Murder (1959)
The Augustas (1930s-1950s)
Born Yesterday (1950)
Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961)
A Christmas Story (1983)
The Corbett-Fitzsimmons Title Fight (1897)
Dirty Harry (1971)
Hours for Jerome: Parts 1 and 2 (1980-82)
The Kidnappers Foil (1930s-1950s)
Kodachrome Color Motion Picture Tests (1922)
A League of Their Own (1992)
The Matrix (1999)
The Middleton Family at the New York World’s Fair (1939)
One Survivor Remembers (1995)
Parable (1964)
Samsara: Death and Rebirth of Cambodia (1990)
Slacker (1991)
Sons of the Desert (1933)
The Spook Who Sat by the Door (1973)
They Call It Pro Football (1967)
The Times of Harvey Milk (1984)
Two-Lane Blacktop (1971)
Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1914)
The Wishing Ring; An Idyll of Old England (1914)

A League of Their Own??

Well, the subject matter is definitely remarkable, I'd definitely preserve and archive any documentary footage of it, but c'mon...

"There's no crying in baseball" is all anyone remembers about it, but it's enough I guess!

I'm just psyched to see Two-Lane Blacktop on there. And Slacker. Two fiction films that capture a time/place with more depth and authenticity than most documentaries I've seen.

domino harvey wrote:"There's no crying in baseball" is all anyone remembers about it, but it's enough I guess!

I mostly remember it because it featured Madonna's This Used To Be My Playground (and the way it was the subject of an amusing Futurama parody).

I guess A League of Their Own was just the most mainstream of the spate of those late 80s/early 90s movies about historical baseball figures/stories/scandals along with Babe, Eight Men Out and Cooperstown (and the updating of fictional baseball works Rookie of the Year and Angels In The Outfield, with a new angel/baseball angle appearing in Field of Dreams, and a new kids baseball film series with Major League. Not to mention that Ron Shelton film which probably kicked the whole trend off, Bull Durham! Shelton also got in on the historical figure act with the Tommy Lee Jones-starring Cobb)

I remember thinking during this period that I really needed to learn the rules of baseball to appreciate the nuances of the films more fully. I never did.

Field of Dreams deserves to be there over A League of Their Own about 10 times over.

I love that They Call It Pro Football is in the National Archive, though. Totally deserving in every way. The Sabol's NFL Films changed the way Americans embrace their sports heritage.

I'm just both shocked and pleased to see The Spook Who Sat by the Door made the cut. Is Ice even in the Registry yet?

Here are the 2013 additions to the Registry. You can read the LoC's rationale for inclusion of each film here.

Films Selected for the 2013 National Film Registry

Bless Their Little Hearts (1984)
Brandy in the Wilderness (1969)
Cicero March (1966)
Daughter of Dawn (1920)
Decasia (2002)
Ella Cinders (1926)
Forbidden Planet (1956)
Gilda (1946)
The Hole (1962)
Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)
King of Jazz (1930)
The Lunch Date (1989)
The Magnificent Seven (1960)
Martha Graham Early Dance film (1931-44)
Mary Poppins (1964)
Men & Dust (1940)
Midnight (1939)
Notes on the Port of St. Francis (1951)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
The Quiet Man (1952)
The Right Stuff (1983)
Roger & Me (1989)
A Virtuous Vamp (1919)
Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf (1966)
Wild Boys of the Road (1933)

LoC wrote:Director Charles Vidor capitalizes on the voyeuristic and sadomasochistic angles of film noir—and who better to fetishize than Rita Hayworth

Naughty, naughty Library of Congress

What exactly does preservation mean for National Film Registry? Detour (1945) was named in 1992. Does it mean Library of Congress holds the best film elements for it?