1930s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

[swo17]

15 lists in now, and while some more traditionally canonical titles are creeping their way back up the ranks, it's still about 40% new titles compared to the last list, including one film that I would be convinced doesn't actually exist were it not for a few forum members that insist they have in fact seen it. One thing is for certain: every list definitely has an impact.

Only two days left, everyone--make 'em count!

[Tommaso]

I wonder what the film that you believed would not exist actually is...

But before I hand in my list, some brief mentioning of two more I finally managed to see.

Un grand amour de Beethoven (Abel Gance, 1936):

There are few, if any, good movies about the lives of great composers, but this is one of them. It's full of brilliant images and sequences and is reasonably accurate about the life.

I agree, apart from the bit about the accuracy. I'd argue that I've rarely seen a film about a composer's life that is so wildly inaccurate as this one. For instance, according to the film, Beethoven composed his symphonies in this order: 5, 6, 4, 3; he also came up with the title "Moonlight Sonata" (which was only invented after the composer's death), and even the first performance of the 9th symphony, which was a brilliant success, is described as 'total failure' in this film. I'm not usually picky about such details, but in this case I must admit I felt somewhat irritated by Gance's attempt to turn Beethoven into a highly romaticized struggling artist figure dying in poverty.

Still, seen as the fictional biography of a 19th century composer or as a fantasy on Beethoven, the film is highly successful. This is not only due to Harry Baur's magnificent performance, but more so because of Gance's direction, retaining much of the fluid camerawork and great use of light and shade that we know from the silent era. Great use of sound (and its absence) for the depiction of the composer's growing deafness, including some really disturbing 'electronic' sounds - however they were created - indicating the painful noises that he heard when the illness set in. Fine sets vividly recreating the 19th century atmosphere and, when showing the Heiligenstadt mill, also occasionally with a 'gothic' touch, and two enchanting ladies (Annie Ducaux and Jany Holt) as Beethoven's love interests make this film even more a sight to see. Really great, and I wish that a company like MoC would see into it and give the film a reasonable clean-up.

I also finally watched La belle équipe (Duvivier, 1936) and would agree with the praise. A very strong ensemble performance with Gabin being the first among equals, and a dense and well-written script; certainly among the best of Duvivier's films from the 30s, even though I will have only room for "Pépé" on my list. I may be among the few who finds the 'optimistic' ending more convincing, as the original ending makes nonsense of the way the Gabin character has been established so far in the film. But none of the two endings is entirely successful in my view, as the second ending indeed feels somewhat 'tacked on'. In any case, it's fascinating to see how roughly the same material, cut and placed differently, can make for such a totally different story and impact.

[tojoed]

Excellent write up Tommaso, I'm so glad you liked it.
When I said "reasonably accurate" I only meant in comparison to most film biographies of great artists. You are, of course, right about the errors and that Gance treated Beethoven, as he did Napoleon, as an object for hero worship.

Nevertheless, I liked especially the scene of Beethoven's last words, which were rendered accurately, "Plaudite, Amici, commoedia finita est". It is one of the most affecting scenes in film.

[swo17]

Since it came up with someone by PM, I thought I should mention that if any of you who submitted your lists early have seen any films since then that you wish to alter your lists to include, you are welcome to do so, up until the deadline.

[matrixschmatrix]

Well, shit- my computer died, meaning I'm not going to get to watch the German stuff I planned on running as a marathon this weekend. Sorry, Pabst.

I'm going to go ahead and submit my list now, as that was the bulk of what I had still wanted to watch- but if Mädchen in Uniform, Westfront 1918, and Kameradschaft don't make it, it's pretty much my fault.

[Siddon]

Just finished and sent in my list. I had some interesting statistics....

Country of Origin -
USA(38), France (6), England (3), Germany (2), Japan (1)

Year Distribution -
39 (8), 37 (7), 36 (7), 31 (6), 34 (5), 38 (4), 30 (4), 35 (4), 32 (3), 33 (2)

Criterion Collection titles - 17 titles
Academy Award Best Picture winners - 5 titles

Genre classification

Romance - 17
Period Pieces - 17
Sci Fi/Fantasy - 8
Horror - 8
War - 7
Comedy - 4
Musical - 4

[zedz]

15 lists in now, and while some more traditionally canonical titles are creeping their way back up the ranks, it's still about 40% new titles compared to the last list, including one film that I would be convinced doesn't actually exist were it not for a few forum members that insist they have in fact seen it.

If it's something I voted for, I bet I know what it is!

Be prepared for the canonical titles to continue their forced march on the list. It's just the way these things work - the more people participate, the more the consensus drifts towards the films that everybody has seen. Though I'm really interested to see how the [euphemism]changing distribution landscape[/euphemism] has impacted on this list.

[swo17]

If it's something I voted for, I bet I know what it is!

I bet you do, though your case that it exists is not helped by the fact that the other person who voted for it has since discovered that he had confused it with another of the director's films.

Be prepared for the canonical titles to continue their forced march on the list. It's just the way these things work - the more people participate, the more the consensus drifts towards the films that everybody has seen.

Yeah, everything I've said earlier about how the results are trending has been pretty well blown out of the water over the last two days. Particularly heartbreaking has been watching my big secret #1 film plummet from 6th place early on to, presently, 90th, and frankly I doubt it will survive the night.

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

including one film that I would be convinced doesn't actually exist were it not for a few forum members that insist they have in fact seen it.

Maybe there were some forum members in Bologna in 2009?

[knives]

Be prepared for the canonical titles to continue their forced march on the list. It's just the way these things work - the more people participate, the more the consensus drifts towards the films that everybody has seen.

Yeah, everything I've said earlier about how the results are trending has been pretty well blown out of the water over the last two days. Particularly heartbreaking has been watching my big secret #1 film plummet from 6th place early on to, presently, 90th, and frankly I doubt it will survive the night.

I hope all of my little babies get somewhere. At the very least Stolen Death got a nice little push in the end. The two other big ones probably got nothing though.

[swo17]

Maybe there were some forum members in Bologna in 2009?

Bologna...that sounds like one of those places that doesn't actually exist.

[Saturnome]

Well, I'm about to watch Stolen Death right now, then I submit my happy little list full of the usual canonical titles. Thanks to this week I've been able to complete a top 50, so there's that.

[lubitsch]

Yeah, everything I've said earlier about how the results are trending has been pretty well blown out of the water over the last two days. Particularly heartbreaking has been watching my big secret #1 film plummet from 6th place early on to, presently, 90th, and frankly I doubt it will survive the night.

I can't say I'm surprised ... I still don't see what's gained by including the votes of people who surely like film but simply aren't knowledgeable enough and water down the votes of those who aren't limited in their experience to horror and gangster films, Ozu and Renoir.

[Tommaso]

Harshly put, as usual. But all this simply reflects what the major dvd labels allow people to see. Just imagine how this list would change if Criterion or MoC got a bright moment and released "Der Student von Prag" or "Maskerade". I don't think you can generally criticise people for that, and it may also have something to do with how much you're involved with a particular era. For instance, just this afternoon I jotted down a provisional list for the 40s. I did the same at the beginning of the 30s listmaking, and came up with about 100 titles. For the 40s, it's only about 30 so far, and six of them from the same director. I've seen many more, of course, but only those 30 have made the same impact on me as the films from the 20s and 30s did. I'm still undecided whether it's a decline in quality or whether I've just not discovered as many real gems from the 40s as I should have. We'll see.

But that is why I still like the much criticised idea of heaving that additional 'weighted' list that Lubitsch introduced in the last round... You know, asking people who did not vote for films ranking particularly high on other people's list for whether they have seen them or not.

[swo17]

I can't say I'm surprised ... I still don't see what's gained by including the votes of people who surely like film but simply aren't knowledgeable enough and water down the votes of those who aren't limited in their experience to horror and gangster films, Ozu and Renoir.

I didn't say the results now resemble the old canon, just that they're very different from how they looked earlier in the week with far fewer lists in.

Also, the most constructive way to "complain" about the results would be for you to submit your own top 50.

[Mr Sausage]

I had no idea these Lists were so important that we should consider excluding people from them for not being good enough.

[Gropius]

I can't say I'm surprised ... I still don't see what's gained by including the votes of people who surely like film but simply aren't knowledgeable enough and water down the votes of those who aren't limited in their experience to horror and gangster films, Ozu and Renoir.

Even if only a hypothetical 'cognoscenti' voted, the resulting list would still be more predictably canonical than any individual submission (cf. the Sight & Sound polls, or any poll of film critics). Also, horror is not as dominant as you seem to think: by my count, only 3 horror titles made the 2006 list, and those were the ones with the most 'arthouse' consecration (the two Whale Frankensteins and Vampyr).

[matrixschmatrix]

But that is why I still like the much criticised idea of heaving that additional 'weighted' list that Lubitsch introduced in the last round... You know, asking people who did not vote for films ranking particularly high on other people's list for whether they have seen them or not.

As someone who didn't get to see nearly as much as I would have liked to, I would be pretty happy to see this as well- it does nothing to lessen the movies that wind up on top, but it means the struggling contenders in the bottom ranks and the also-rans which only had two viewers might gain a little more cachet, and hopefully be more prominent in the next cycle's to-watch lists.

Broadly, though, it seems silly to assume that anything canonical reflects a narrowness of view, particularly when the 'canon' we're discussing is already fairly refined- I'd bet money that none of The Wizard of Oz, King Kong, or Gone With the Wind wind up in the top five, so it's not like we're all just reflexively going with the movies everyone knows. One of the reasons that Renoir, Ozu, horror and gangster all place high on a regular basis is that a lot of them are really fucking good.

[domino harvey]

I had no idea these Lists were so important that we should consider excluding people from them for not being good enough.

Did you get permission from lubitsch before posting a rebuttal to his argument? If not, please submit a 750 word essay on why your opinion on his opinion matters

I don't understand how anyone can ever again stomach anything lubitsch has to say after that last comment. Just unreal.

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

Maybe there were some forum members in Bologna in 2009?

Bologna...that sounds like one of those places that doesn't actually exist.

Of course it exists it's where all the spaghetti trees are

[Tommaso]

Also, the most constructive way to "complain" about the results would be for you to submit your own top 50.

Exactly. Especially as this might save some of my own favourites from utter oblivion...

[Wu.Qinghua]

I have to admit that I've struggled for quite a while to come to grips with other people's love for Ozu and in the end put at least one canonical Ozu - with lots of, brrr, children - on my list ...

Well, I wonder whether it would be a good idea to make the individual lists anonymous and add them to the 'big list'. I' d expect, that those lists would add up to a very interesting field of aesthetic tastes as well as social concerns and could well be used for further excursions in different national, stylistic etc cinemas in the future?

[swo17]

But that is why I still like the much criticised idea of heaving that additional 'weighted' list that Lubitsch introduced in the last round... You know, asking people who did not vote for films ranking particularly high on other people's list for whether they have seen them or not.

As someone who didn't get to see nearly as much as I would have liked to, I would be pretty happy to see this as well- it does nothing to lessen the movies that wind up on top, but it means the struggling contenders in the bottom ranks and the also-rans which only had two viewers might gain a little more cachet, and hopefully be more prominent in the next cycle's to-watch lists.

I was already planning to include some statistics along with the results that give an indication of which films placed highly on individual lists but just didn't get many votes. I'd be happy to tabulate something like Tommaso has suggested as well, though I'm not sure how many of the contributors will really want to sort through a list of 500+ titles and tick off which ones they have and haven't seen.

[Cold Bishop]

I still don't see what's gained by including the votes of people who surely like film but simply aren't knowledgeable enough and water down the votes of those who aren't limited in their experience to horror and gangster films.

Are we really still arguing against genre films in this day and age?

I, on the other hand, won't be submitting a list, seeing as the cinema is nothing more than a vulgar artform.

[Tommaso]

I'd be happy to tabulate something like Tommaso has suggested as well, though I'm not sure how many of the contributors will really want to sort through a list of 500+ titles and tick off which ones they have and haven't seen.

I don't remember exactly how Lubitsch did it the last time around, but wouldn't it be feasible to just take those films that appear on more than one list in the top 20 and ask the other contributors who didn't list them whether they have seen them or not? This would also depend on the number of lists handed in, of course.