criterionforum.org

Penultimate reminder:

Lists are due in TWO DAYS.

I've only received 5 so far.

1) Tie: a-PASSION JOAN OF ARC (Dreyer, '28) /b- MENILMONTANT (Kirsanoff, 25)

2) INTOLERANCE (Griffith, '15-'16)

3) CHUTE DE LA MAISON USHER (Epstein, 28)

4) Murnau ties himself: NOSFERATU (22) / FAUST (25) / SUNRISE (27) / TABU (30)

5) Yevgeni Bauer ties himself AFTER DEATH ('15) / THE DYING SWAN ('16)

6) SIR ARNE'S TREASURE (Stiller, '19)

7) THE END OF ST. PETERSBERG (27, Pudovkin)

8) Von Stroeheim ties himself FOOLISH WIVES ('21) / GREED, especially the expressionistic zones of the lost areas (23)

9) THE BATTLESHIP POTYEMKIN ('25, Eisenstein)

10) The Carl Mayer Kammerspiel Trilogy: SCHERBEN (Pick, '21) / SYLVESTER (Pick, 23) / DER LETZE MANN (Murnau, '24)

Frustrating omissions: HAXAN, BACKSTAIRS, BRUMES DE AUTOMNE, BERLIN; SYMPHONIE DER GROSSTADT, DER WACHSFIGURENKABINETT, THE MAN WHO LAUGHS, FANTOMAS & LES VAMPIRES (most of Feulliade's serials, actually, including JUDEX which I love), CABIRIA, REGENERATION, CALIGARI, NIBELUNGEN, VARIETE, THIEF OF BAGDHAD, BROKEN BLOSSOMS, DIE CHRONIK VON GRIESHUUS, DER MUDE TOD, MUCH OF GERHARD LAMPRECHT, SCHATTEN (WARNING SHADOWS), DIE STRASSE, VANINA. These are more than just very fine filent films; all are masterpieces and wreaked a heavy influence in their time, and hold up quite well.

A note on INTOLERANCE. Though some may have a 'problem' with Griffith owing to BIRTH OF A NATION as well as moralizing & sentimentality, his films, aside from being quite fine even today, simply cannot be ignored for this kind of a list. Sperating personal preference from "importance" is quite a chore, and it is quite nice when the two coincide in a no-brainer way (like my two ties for number one).

It is quite simply impossible to get around INTOLERANCE. I happen to like it very much, but this isn't the primary reason I have it at number two. It is just unimagineably impressive in it's conception. It simply boggles the mind to put it in its proper context. It's probably the most important silent film ever made, if not the most important film ever made. So much of what we celebrate here on this board today, the turn that cinema took in the late teens, taken up in the 20's with the more poetic & subjective masterpieces of Murnau and Dreyer, the Soviets, the French, is a result of INTOLERANCE. It's just a flat factual statement devoid of taste. When you are a young man full of fire looking to kick the world's ass with "truth", you have heroes who you feel are doing that: this was the way Griffith was viewed by our heroes of the 20's, and it was this inspiration to expand, be grand and uncompromising, to be immortal, that caused film to take the turn it did resulting in those masterpieces that still blow our heads off. This was-- outside of it's innumerable innovations and astonishing features-- really truly the birth of the "uncompromising art" film, of the director creating something which ranked alongside the classics of literature. It said something; it yelled at mankind. It completely transformed the image of the director from someone cranking out various spectacles-- some quite soaring and immortal i e REGENRATION & CABIRIA to give divergent examples-- to the heroic maestro of serious masterpieces not to be interfered with... that all who came after him, from Eisenstein to Murnau to Stiller to Dreyer to Stroeheim etc, battling to get a vision onscreen versus bottom-line oriented producers, emulated and aspired to, even imitating the 2 initial thing i e E A Dupont, F W Murnau, G W Pabst. All of these guys absorbed and imitated and aspired to this movie.. LEAVES FROM SATANS BOOK, SATANAS (murnau, a now-lost 1919 4-story omnibus film united by a common theme running throughout), DER MUDE TOD, WAXWORKS, Eisenstein of course. The influence of Bitzer & Griffith in cinematography, sweep, scope, intimacy (the focusing on for the first time of immensely human little intimate details i e the hanky nibbling of Mae Marsh in the courtroom in INTOL, the grab-assing and ball breaking of the two boys in BIRTH OF, of course montage editing, conception, set construction... it's there in everything which came after. INTOLERANCE simply cannot be gotten around in it's influence. The only guy on my list who I could say remained
completely unaffected by Griffith is Yevgeni Bauer. His innovations occured almost entirely in his own head, in a vacuum, crafting melodramas which tear to shreds almost everything made since straight on thru to today.

Schreck,

If you're going to submit a list--which I hope you do--it needs to follow the guidelines, which include 1) no ties, 2) 50 films total, and 3) no films post-1929 (e.g. Tabu).

(And remember, Schreck, these need not be silent films, so you can vote for Applause and The Love Parade, which you should!)

Everyone else, lists are due TOMORROW!

denti alligator wrote:(And remember, Schreck, these need not be silent films, so you can vote for Applause and The Love Parade, which you should!)

Or King Vidor's Hallelujah! (1929), if you're so inclined.

denti alligator wrote:If you're going to submit a list--which I hope you do--it needs to follow the guidelines, which include 1) no ties, 2) 50 films total,

Is it 50 or bust now? Page one says "up to 50" but the rules could easily have been chnaged in the interim.

matt wrote:1. You may list up to 50 films, ranked from 1 to 50, no ties.

Brian Oblivious wrote:

denti alligator wrote:If you're going to submit a list--which I hope you do--it needs to follow the guidelines, which include 1) no ties, 2) 50 films total,

Is it 50 or bust now? Page one says "up to 50" but the rules could easily have been chnaged in the interim.

matt wrote:1. You may list up to 50 films, ranked from 1 to 50, no ties.

I think it should be 50. No more, no less.

To quote from the original rules:

1. 50 films, ranked from 1 to 50, no ties. The list must go to 50. The film ranked #1 will get 50 points, #2 will get 49, down to #50 which get 1 point.

(my emphasis)

I don't know if Michael rejected lists with less than 50, but I think this is the only way to go. Otherwise we'll have an imbalance of votes for certain films. My guess is that if you haven't seen 50 films from the era, you've probably only seen the most well-known ones, and these would then get more votes per list than the lesser-known films that, with a 50-film requirement, have a better chance of evening out the final list, which I really hope doesn't look all-too-predictable.

Does that make sense?

Oh, and please number your lists when you submit them. This makes it easier for me. Thanks.

denti alligator wrote: My guess is that if you haven't seen 50 films from the era, you've probably only seen the most well-known ones, and these would then get more votes per list than the lesser-known films that, with a 50-film requirement, have a better chance of evening out the final list, which I really hope doesn't look all-too-predictable.

Actually, if you haven't seen 50 silent films, you're not really in any position to make a meaningful contribution to the list. (What if you'd only seen the 38 worst films made during the silent era? How would you know?)

That list of titles voted for so far looks a lot more interesting and diverse than the previous list, and several of my Top 10 films aren't even on it!

zedz wrote:That list of titles voted for so far looks a lot more interesting and diverse than the previous list, and several of my Top 10 films aren't even on it!

That's only from two lists. I've received 4 more and then there's mine. I don't have time to add these to the running list, though. I've had to reject two lists for being short of 50. Sorry.

I don't know if Michael rejected lists with less than 50, but I think this is the only way to go.

Yes, I did. I only accepted lists with 50 titles, no more no less.

I think you should admit any serious list in the poll, regardless of the number of entries. Rather include a list of 10 or 25 films that truly represent someone's favorite films of that particular era, than to include lists, where the authors have strained to come up with 50.

Scharphedin2 wrote:I think you should admit any serious list in the poll, regardless of the number of entries. Rather include a list of 10 or 25 films that truly represent someone's favorite films of that particular era, than to include lists, where the authors have strained to come up with 50.

Well, my point is that if somebody has to strain to think of 50 great silent films, this poll obviously isn't for them. Allowing short lists will dilute the aggregate list by biasing it towards the obvious, canonical choices, or the most readily available films.

Such films already have a distinct advantage. Almost everyone with an interest in silent film is likely to have seen Metropolis or The Gold Rush, so they're theoretically in the running for almost every list, but even the most devoted silent fan may never have had the chance to see such major films as A Page of Madness or The Outlaw and His Wife.

Someone who's only seen a handful of Langs and Chaplins and King of Kings may sincerely believe that the ten films on his or her list are the best the silent era had to offer, but that's hardly an informed opinion. In a list of only 25 films, number 12 might only count as 'pretty good', and by number 20 the list may be digging into 'dull but worthy', yet those choices will be accorded the same weight as films that other voters can passionately defend as all-time masterpieces. It just seems to skew the whole process.

So, I'm supporting denti and Michael: 50 or nothing, and if you're scraping the bottom of the barrel to fill up those 50, then don't bother: it's hardly going to be a '50 greatest films' list if that's the case.

That said, I guess I better get my own house (list) in order and send it through.

davidhare wrote:So Denti have I got time to get a list in within 24 hours?

(Don't forget we're a day or so ahead of him!)

I'm not much of a one for lists either (but I like other people's). If you think of the list as a snapshot of your relative feelings for the various films at a particular point of time (rather than Moses on the mount) it's much easier.

My problem is that the top five to ten in any era seem to be pretty secure, but there are about twenty films vying for the next tier, and about fifty at the next level of excellence! So I clump them in that very rough order then fiddle about within the list through a series of binary choices (OK, today do I prefer The Playhouse to Lady Windemere's Fan?; do I prefer Lady Windemere's Fan to Aelita?) This can go on forever, so I call a halt when the list is due and make it somebody else's problem.

davidhare wrote:Just confirming silents released with Movietone soundtracks on original screenings like say Sunrise or West of Zanzibar are not eligible?

Anything released before 1930, including full-on talkies, is eligible.

If people have not been watching silent era films to reach 50 and beyond, then there isn't a point in submitting a list, is there? A main reason for announcing the due date for the list months ahead of time was to give people a chance to immerse themselves in the period (if necessary, and it certainly was for me) in order to produce informed lists. My concept of the period has been radically revised and deepened after months of devouring one film after another. I was one of those starting at ten, but in the course of zooming toward 120 (counting actualities) the period has taken shape in a way inconceivable based on my starting point. It also gave my previously moribund VCR a workout, since so much good stuff is not yet available on DVD. The 30s will be another, though far less radical, education if the forum is still around.

davidhare wrote: So Denti have I got time to get a list in within 24 hours?

Yes, you have over 24 hours, by my count. I'll be running the final tally when I wake up Thursday morning, New York time. I'm a late sleeper...

denti alligator wrote:Schreck,

If you're going to submit a list--which I hope you do--it needs to follow the guidelines, which include 1) no ties, 2) 50 films total, and 3) no films post-1929 (e.g. Tabu).

My apologies. I wasn't planning on doing this one, and responding to your pm I imitated someone else's list-structure which was pm'd to me in private, which only had their top ten. (The ties are because lists like this are so fucking impossible, declaring one masterpiece to be better than another) I never did a list on this forum (or any forum for that matter) so bear with me. Will revamp & PM you by tomorrow.

FYI I put it up publicly to try & stir some conversation in this since it was looking pretty bleak responsewise. Again, apologies.

HerrSchreck wrote:

denti alligator wrote:Schreck,

If you're going to submit a list--which I hope you do--it needs to follow the guidelines, which include 1) no ties, 2) 50 films total, and 3) no films post-1929 (e.g. Tabu).

My apologies. I wasn't planning on doing this one, and responding to your pm I imitated someone else's list-structure which was pm'd to me in private, which only had their top ten. (The ties are because lists like this are so fucking impossible, declaring one masterpiece to be better than another) I never did a list on this forum (or any forum for that matter) so bear with me. Will revamp & PM you by tomorrow.

FYI I put it up publicly to try & stir some conversation in this since it was looking pretty bleak responsewise. Again, apologies.

Ok, Schreck. Get it to me asap, tomorrow morning at the latest. Is anyone else still planning on submitting a list?

Is anyone else still planning on submitting a list?

I just sent you mine.

bufordsharkley wrote:Is anyone else still planning on submitting a list?

I just sent you mine.

Got it. Thanks.

Anyone else? Schreck, let's get your list in and put an end to this!
I'm keeping score in real time and, let me tell you, it's been a rollercoaster for me, watching my favorites go up and down the list, being overtaken by overrated so-called "classics (oops, let out my biases) -- anyway... a real blast. I don't expect the top 4 to change no matter what votes come in, but the rest is still in flux...

Oh, and is NO ONE (besides me) going to vote for L'inhumaine or Moana???

Denti, if I were to make a list, L'Inhumaine would be near my top ten, if not on it. So, THERE.

List in. Hey Singore Alligheri I got in in whereby my clock didn't tick into June yet.

And I agree, if you can't come up with at least 50 good silents then your surveying skills are not such that you're going to add much beyond JOAN & METROPOLIS, and will only serve to fatten the obvious versus the more rarified pleasures. One one hand, certain greats are globally known because they are great, but by no means the greatest. My list changed once I learned it was 50 and it was more taste driven than innovation/importance-"greatest". For a subjective list like this experience somewhat required, Id agree.

Which is why we should be unafraid to put older more obvious discoveries into perspective even though we feel newer more obscure greats are more hip. Greats like griffith & eisenstein & stroeheim get shat on as old hat or melodrama or played out, whereas their best films were blazing bombs of jellied gasoline spraying acorss the brain of every filmmaker who looked thru a viewfinder. We should never confuse "old news" with NO news. These are indeed great and its why we know them so well, thus Griffith & Eisenstein shamelessly inhabit my list. As for GREED I know the film that comes down to us now on reels isn't what it was, but seeing the stills, reading the continuity, and knowing stroeheim it's obvious this guy was ahead of the whole planet for a couple years there, and we have to vote for the films he made, not for whats been done to them. Never let Eric fade away. Those assholes like Thahlberg (sure EVS was an asshole too, but no more so than Lang who made the same bloated soaring pics, and griffith, etc) will have succeeded if we forget what he actually did.

David Hare wrote:Im not in the least bit bothered if the "top five" are completely predictable. They probably deserve to be, by dint of being more widely available, and widely seen.

HerrSchreck wrote:Which is why we should be unafraid to put older more obvious discoveries into perspective even though we feel newer more obscure greats are more hip.

Based on past experience, the final list (at least its upper echelons) will be less interesting than the also-rans, which can be passionately defended by their supporters in the appropriate thread.

We all know that The Passion of Joan of Arc is great, and that Metropolis is - uh - there, but I'm looking forward to being proselytized in favour of obscure Impressionist gems, or finding some more guides for that mysterious polar territory we know as the 1910s.

viridiana wrote:Denti, if I were to make a list, L'Inhumaine would be near my top ten, if not on it. So, THERE.

You've still got about 12 hours...

At 40 minutes before midnight, New York time, this list is looking VERY interesting, indeed.

Some stats (not likely to change, as I don't expect more votes, though I'll hold off until tomorrow to reveal the final list):

- 12 lists submitted (my own included)

- 226 different films voted for

- 107 received votes from at least two people

- 32 films from voters' top 15 did NOT make the final list

- only 1 film ranked by a voter #1 did NOT make the final list