Pre 1920s List Discussion/Suggestions (List Project Vol. 3)

An ongoing project to survey the best films of individual decades, genres, and filmmakers.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#426 Post by zedz » Wed Jun 02, 2010 6:14 pm

I agree that this was a really worthwhile exercise, and it certainly transformed my understanding and appreciation of the era.

Some stats:

Nearly half of my selections were shorts (24, though I’m counting some very short features as features), with probably four or five of those under a minute. And these were spread pretty consistently throughout my list, with half of the top ten shorts.

Almost overlapping, I had eleven films I’d call non-narrative, plus another three not-really-narratives (e.g. The Sinking of the Lusitania and A Lively Quarter-Day).

National breakdown was:
USA: 21
France: 8
Italy: 5
Sweden: 4
Great Britain: 4
Denmark: 3
Russia: 3
Germany: 2

Nineteen of the films that ended up in my list of fifty I hadn’t seen before embarking on this project, and another seven I had seen but had overlooked (or, in one case, didn’t realise was a 1910s film). For me, that’s a very significant statistic, and it gives a good measure of how transformative this viewing project has been of my understanding of the era. I have no idea how many films I viewed in total, but I’m assuming that, having made it through Melies and Edison and Paul and Gaumont, I’d be easily up into four figures too, which is sort of mind-boggling.

And while I’m here, I’ll float the idea of starting a fresh “Defend Your Darlings” thread once the results come in, since we’re embarking on a new round of the Lists Project. Any takers?

User avatar
reno dakota
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:30 am

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#427 Post by reno dakota » Wed Jun 02, 2010 7:02 pm

I just want to echo all of the previous enthusiasm for this leg of the lists project. I have now participated in three polls (having joined in the recent 90s and 00s lists), and this has been the most illuminating and rewarding of the three. My final list contained a staggering 49 films that I had never seen before I began working on the project back in February. As shameful as it is to admit that, it is also exciting to have found so many pre-1920s films that I simply cannot live without. This project has been a real eye-opener, for sure.

There were a number of highly praised films that I was not able to see—The Life Story of David Lloyd George, Nerven, Der Andere, Homunculus, Stiller’s Thomas Graal films and Love and Journalism, Holger-Madsen’s Himmelskibet, South and The Battle of the Somme, as well as others that were mentioned here and there. Here’s hoping that five years from now, when the pre-20s poll comes around again, most (if not all) of the rare films in Lubitsch's initial post will be more widely available, and that we all will have the chance to discover more uncharted masterpieces and great talents that currently lie outside the canon.

My top ten:

1. Sir Arne’s Treasure (Stiller, 1919)
2. The President (Dreyer, 1919)
3. After Death (Bauer, 1915)
4. Blind Justice (Christensen, 1916)
5. The Outlaw and His Wife (Sjöström, 1918)
6. The Dying Swan (Bauer, 1917)
7. The Sinking of the Lusitania (McCay, 1918)
8. Intolerance (Griffith, 1916)
9. Regeneration (Walsh, 1915)
10. The Land Beyond the Sunset (Shaw, 1912)

[No pre-1910s films in my top ten, sadly, but I did include some great ones down-list.]

zedz wrote:And while I’m here, I’ll float the idea of starting a fresh “Defend Your Darlings” thread once the results come in, since we’re embarking on a new round of the Lists Project. Any takers?
Sounds good to me.

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#428 Post by Tommaso » Wed Jun 02, 2010 7:20 pm

Agreed on "Defend your Darlings". Just go ahead, zedz.

And if I see the preliminary Top 3 to Top 10 postings here, one doesn't have to be a prophet to announce a sweeping success for Evgeni Bauer already. And Heavens, the man really deserves it.

User avatar
reno dakota
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:30 am

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#429 Post by reno dakota » Wed Jun 02, 2010 7:26 pm

Tommaso wrote:And if I see the preliminary Top 3 to Top 10 postings here, one doesn't have to be a prophet to announce a sweeping success for Evgeni Bauer already. And Heavens, the man really deserves it.
I had 8 Bauer films on my list—probably a bit overboard, but I couldn't help myself.

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#430 Post by Tommaso » Wed Jun 02, 2010 7:34 pm

No, not at all overboard. I only took one or two Bauers off my list because I wanted to do a little bit of justice to some other filmmakers, too. But speaking from the heart only: in the period in question, Bauer might quite simply be the most astonishing director for me.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#431 Post by knives » Wed Jun 02, 2010 7:40 pm

I only had the opportunity to see two, but both managed my list. It's insane that still few have gotten so good. It appears though that it will be a vicious battle between Broken Blossoms and Sir Arne for that top spot.

User avatar
reno dakota
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:30 am

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#432 Post by reno dakota » Wed Jun 02, 2010 8:10 pm

Tommaso wrote:No, not at all overboard. I only took one or two Bauers off my list because I wanted to do a little bit of justice to some other filmmakers, too. But speaking from the heart only: in the period in question, Bauer might quite simply be the most astonishing director for me.
Bauer is certainly the biggest revelation for me. I had never heard of him four months ago and now I think that any appraisal of pre-1920s cinema that does not include him is woefully deficient.
knives wrote:I only had the opportunity to see two, but both managed my list. It's insane that still few have gotten so good. It appears though that it will be a vicious battle between Broken Blossoms and Sir Arne for that top spot.
I would have guessed that Intolerance would be the Griffith contending for the top spot.

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#433 Post by Tommaso » Wed Jun 02, 2010 8:30 pm

I actually gave #43 to "Intolerance"....

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#434 Post by Gregory » Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:04 pm

Tommaso wrote:I actually gave #43 to "Intolerance"....
That's funny, so did I.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#435 Post by zedz » Wed Jun 02, 2010 10:43 pm

knives wrote:I only had the opportunity to see two, but both managed my list. It's insane that still few have gotten so good. It appears though that it will be a vicious battle between Broken Blossoms and Sir Arne for that top spot.
I'm not going to be the one to sort them out. Neither one made my top ten, but there they are, nestled side by side further down the list.

User avatar
nsps
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:25 am
Contact:

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#436 Post by nsps » Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:03 pm

zedz wrote:Almost overlapping, I had eleven films I’d call non-narrative, plus another three not-really-narratives (e.g. The Sinking of the Lusitania and A Lively Quarter-Day).
I haven't statted myself up yet, but my list is quite heavy on non-narratives. If I were to compile a list of the most important or historically significant films, it would be quite different from my list of favorites. While I know some people get excited seeing precursors to specific narrative techniques, for an early film to rank on my list I really needed to see a certain spark, whether it comes from its maker's excitement with the possibilities of the medium or the subject. I found that documentaries like "A Day in the Life of a Coal Miner" were often more satisfying in both their compositions and their subjects. A moment of natural life from more than 100 years ago simply speaks to me more than actors on a stagey set from the same time.

The Lumiere films may be less than a minute, but many of them are perfectly self-contained within their context, and fared very well in ranking. (Even something as sublime as Sir Arne's Treasure has some unsatisfying moments in which the filmmakers resorted to title cards when visualizations would have been more satisfying (unless the footage in those places is actually missing and I didn't realize it).) I rate "Workers Leaving the Factory" not because it was the first anything, but because I love the energy pulsating around all the people—each unique, some keen to ratchet up the horseplay and glee for the camera. I find the moving camera and the resulting change in composition in "Départ de Jérusalem en chemin de fer" exhilarating. "Le repas de bébé" is simple in its compositional qualities, but again, captures touching human qualities that so many films lack.

User avatar
lubitsch
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:20 pm

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#437 Post by lubitsch » Thu Jun 03, 2010 3:49 am

It looks as if we end up with 14 lists from exactly those users who intended submitting lists judging from the posts in this thread, two members stated the possibility of minor amendments today, two asked for a 24h delay.
I close the lists today, but may have a question here or there via PM. As far as I can see all lists were made with great care, there's no cheap effort among them where the compiler has seen too few films, so we get a representative and illuminating picture of today's taste for the era.
I can already tell you that after the 8th list there was no film left which collected votes from all participants, Broken Blossoms being the last one losing out.

User avatar
Lemmy Caution
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:26 am
Location: East of Shanghai

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#438 Post by Lemmy Caution » Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:40 am

I thought the discussion for this list was excellent and will make a good resource for the future.

Unfortunately, my access to many of the films and filmmakers discussed was far too limited to participate. I do have the Flicker Alley Melies, a 5 disc Lumiere set, the BFI Mad Love Bauer, and some Griffith, Chaplin, etc. But missing far too many of the films that generated enthusiasm and discussion.

Great job by the fearless fourteen.
Last edited by Lemmy Caution on Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sloper
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 10:06 pm

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#439 Post by Sloper » Thu Jun 03, 2010 6:32 am

The main thing I feel like doing after compiling my list is making excuses...

First, for the films I didn't manage to see: Judex, Tih Minh, any Tourneur besides Figures de Cire (which I liked, but not quite enough) - and er, lots of other stuff. I really meant to spend some time on Chaplin, but ran out of time/couldn't summon up the willpower. Same goes for the early Keatons and Lloyds. My list is really depressing actually. Thank god for The Oyster Princess.

Second, for the films I liked but didn't list because I just don't know them well enough. This applies to many of the Bauers (especially Daydreams), which I would want to get to know much better before ranking them in relation to other films, although there are five on my list. It also applies to the last film I watched before finishing, Gore Sary / The Sorrows of Sarah (1913), a seriously depressing little tragedy from Russia, available on the Europa treasures site. It's a bit histrionic at times, but with a lot of powerful moments, and a beautiful final shot. I recommend it if you haven't already seen it.

And thirdly, for the films I was sure I was going to like, and feel I should have done, but Christ help me I just didn't. So there's no J'Accuse, no David Lloyd George, no L'Inferno - and no Porter or Méliès either. But these are all things I'm sure I'll revisit many times (especially the Gance), so maybe my feelings will have changed by the time we do this again...

I did get to 50, but was sorry there weren't more films I felt bad about taking off the list. Whittling it down was mostly just a case of pushing myself into a corner and demanding the truth about whether I really loved these films, or whether I was merely trifling with them like some feckless dilletante. But I was a little sad to see things like The ? Motorist, The Airship Destroyer, The Doll and The Reawakening get knocked off.

Anyway, this has been fun. When zedz first floated the idea last year I was afraid there wouldn't be that many people interested, but it's been great to see so many participants. A lot of the extra materials that accompany these films on the DVDs, and (from what little I've read) a lot of the scholarship as well, seems to focus on historical matters, on the context(s) of the films. So it's been very refreshing to just hear film buffs get enthusiastic about how beautiful and entertaining this stuff is. There's nothing (in films from subsequent decades, or in real life for that matter) quite like the way a pre-20s film captures the transfiguring effects of sunlight, or the obliterating effects of shade, on people, objects, water. There's a purity - as well as a naivety that sometimes slips into something more sinister - about this era of cinema which seems to get lost even in the 20s. That said, this project has also made me realise just how much of my love for these films is tied up in the excitement of watching the medium develop in its earliest days. That's something we can't quite do with other art forms, so it's a real privilege to have so much early cinema available to us now. A lot of these DVDs keep getting put into storage at my university's library, which is perplexing. How can any film student not be interested in this period, which (however challenging to the attention span it may sometimes be) has so much to teach us?

Anyway, down off the pulpit Sloper. Huge thanks to lubitsch for being a great list-master, to swo17 for introducing me to a lot of films I wouldn't otherwise have seen, and to everyone else for making this thread such a pleasure to read week after week.

User avatar
lubitsch
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:20 pm

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#440 Post by lubitsch » Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:37 am

Sloper wrote: First, for the films I didn't manage to see: Judex, Tih Minh, any Tourneur besides Figures de Cire (which I liked, but not quite enough) - and er, lots of other stuff. I really meant to spend some time on Chaplin, but ran out of time/couldn't summon up the willpower.
OK, I have 12 lists including my own and a promise that I get another today, HerrSchreck however hasn't PMed me at all, I wrote a message to him because it would be a shame to lose his input.
As for the gaps, I might ask some members via PM about leaving off certain films which featured on all lists except theirs in order to make sure that they haven't forgotten them. Chaplin fares dismally bad and while some people here don't like him, I simply can't believe the results he scored until know. The problem with these lists seems to be that to a certain degree they encourage discoveries during the watching progress and some old favorites are receding in the background.
I have also made a change in the rules regarding the eligibility for the final list: One vote is enough for the ranking though obviously this can't be a top place. The reason for this is that I believe that these votes may be eccentric but also sometimes point out films others didn't seek out or couldn't find at all. I'll also include additionally to the points scored the info how many people voted for the films and will therefore also add the average score. A film that scored 40 points on average but was voted for by only 4 people should raise some interest for the next round of this list in some years.

User avatar
thirtyframesasecond
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#441 Post by thirtyframesasecond » Thu Jun 03, 2010 9:01 am

Shame to hear Chaplin do so badly. Many of the Mutual shorts were superb. One in fact is my fourth placed film!

Also, doesn't look as though my top Bauer choice is the board's favourite, though After Death still polls well with me.

User avatar
Dr Amicus
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:20 am
Location: Guernsey

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#442 Post by Dr Amicus » Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:03 am

No Chaplin for me this time - the only short I've seen recently enough to have an opinion on is Kid Auto Races at Venice, which didn't make my list. Although I was tempted - it's not good in any real sense of the word, but the notion that this is the birth of an icon, along with the improvised nature of several sections, makes for an interesting experience. I do have several volumes of the Stonevision discs lying around, but just didn't have the time to get to them. However, I intend to devour my Warners box set over the coming months for the 20s list (and will try and catch up on the shorts - if only to give them context).

As for Bauer, After Death was the only one I managed to squeeze in. My copy of Mad Love only came a few days beforehand and normally I'd watch them chronoligically to get more of a feel for his development. However, as time was short, I found myself being guided by the liner notes - and went for After Death. Which came 7th in my list.

Other big absences - Intolerance (I have the Kino set - just haven't had time to sit down and watch all 3 hours of it, although I did catch the last hour or so when Channel 4 showed it many years ago and thought it was fantastic); Sir Arne (don't have it - was tempted by the Swedish set linked to earlier, but frankly there's only so much I can add to my kevyip). Any other absences will be dealt with when the final list is out.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#443 Post by zedz » Thu Jun 03, 2010 3:50 pm

lubitsch wrote:I have also made a change in the rules regarding the eligibility for the final list: One vote is enough for the ranking though obviously this can't be a top place. The reason for this is that I believe that these votes may be eccentric but also sometimes point out films others didn't seek out or couldn't find at all.
This is a rather big change to the rules, as there's been a whole long thread devoted to the neglected single-vote-getters. If there aren't enough films attracting two votes we've gone with lists of fewer than 100 in the past. This is probably going to be the only list where there's any need for this to be done, so it would also make it the odd one out.
I'll also include additionally to the points scored the info how many people voted for the films and will therefore also add the average score. A film that scored 40 points on average but was voted for by only 4 people should raise some interest for the next round of this list in some years.
This is a good idea. I would have liked to do it with the later decade lists, but it would have been way to unwieldy.

User avatar
lubitsch
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:20 pm

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#444 Post by lubitsch » Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:29 pm

zedz wrote:
lubitsch wrote:I have also made a change in the rules regarding the eligibility for the final list: One vote is enough for the ranking though obviously this can't be a top place. The reason for this is that I believe that these votes may be eccentric but also sometimes point out films others didn't seek out or couldn't find at all.
This is a rather big change to the rules, as there's been a whole long thread devoted to the neglected single-vote-getters. If there aren't enough films attracting two votes we've gone with lists of fewer than 100 in the past. This is probably going to be the only list where there's any need for this to be done, so it would also make it the odd one out.
Well, I don't see exactly the need to discard a vote, in fact I don't even feel authorised to do so. If somebody thinks a film is great and throws a lone vote in the wilderness without any support which means anyway the film won't score highly, what gives me the right to regard it as somehow nutty choice and throw it away?
A high score for a single film might be a jolt for other viewers to search the film out if they haven't done it before and the film more deserving of attention than a film that collected six ratings in the 1-10 point range. To take two examples that are concerning both of us, you were the single voter for Love and Journalism and I the only one for Ingmarssönerna, probably because we are the only ones who saw the films, but both are acknowledged as important, good films in film histories, our high scores reflect this, so we shouldn't let them become even more obscure than they already are.

I don't know what the problem with Schreck is, he doesn't answer at all. Didn't he intend to participate in this list?
Dr Amicus wrote:Other big absences - Intolerance (I have the Kino set - just haven't had time to sit down and watch all 3 hours of it, although I did catch the last hour or so when Channel 4 showed it many years ago and thought it was fantastic); Sir Arne (don't have it - was tempted by the Swedish set linked to earlier, but frankly there's only so much I can add to my kevyip).
This leads to another question. Should I post the top 20 films in alphabetical order and ask all participants if they saw all of them and urge them to see the missing films and revise the list? I feel slightly uncomfortable about the fact that the ranking of the top films gets decided by the absence of viewing experience. While nobody of us can or want to see all films easily available, I think the top films should be seen by all. Any opinions on this?

User avatar
nsps
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:25 am
Contact:

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#445 Post by nsps » Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:37 pm

thirtyframesasecond wrote:Shame to hear Chaplin do so badly. Many of the Mutual shorts were superb. One in fact is my fourth placed film!

Also, doesn't look as though my top Bauer choice is the board's favourite, though After Death still polls well with me.
Two Chaplins made my list, one at 15 and the other at 47. I went through and watched all his films from the era, including several I hadn't seen, but most of them don't do it for me, or only do it in fits and starts.

User avatar
reno dakota
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:30 am

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#446 Post by reno dakota » Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:45 pm

I vote for keeping the rules as they have always been (i.e., films need at least two votes to be included in the aggregate list). The possibility of great films being supported by only one person has been a problem in every round of the lists project, which is why we have the "Defend your darlings" thread. It may be a good idea to highlight such films as very highly placed one-vote wonders in the also-rans, but I don't think they need to be included in the aggregate list to get the attention they deserve.

As for the issue of popular films not appearing on all of the lists, I think we should leave the voting as it is and proceed to the final list. It would be great if everyone could see everything that placed highly in the voting, but there is no need to hold up the process to make sure this happens. Besides, this project is not meant to be definitive anyway. There will be time to correct our errors and oversights in a future round.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#447 Post by Gregory » Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:55 pm

lubitsch wrote:I feel slightly uncomfortable about the fact that the ranking of the top films gets decided by the absence of viewing experience.
I think this will be the case no matter what. If everyone had seen everything, the top 20 might look extremely different.
lubitsch wrote:While nobody of us can or want to see all films easily available, I think the top films should be seen by all. Any opinions on this?
I personally do not think films popular among most of the voting pool are more worthy of being seen ipso facto, and those less popular among the voting pool thus more permissible to pass over. There's going to be an arbitrariness to what people watch, and as long as most of us have made a good effort, which it looks like we have, I would say let the chips fall where they may. I do see where you're coming from, though, and I'm a little surprised that anyone would watch enough films to compile a list like this and not get around to Chaplin.
reno dakota wrote:The possibility of great films being supported by only one person has been a problem in every round of the lists project
Is that true? I was under the impression that in some of the more recent rounds, a film couldn't place on the list unless a few people voted for it (and possibly not even then).

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#448 Post by domino harvey » Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:59 pm

A film needed to be listed by two people in order to place, period. Even if it placed #1 on someone's list, it could get shut out. In the last few lists, it's taken more than two people voting for a film to place, due to the volume of entries. But lol @ changing the rules without asking anyone

User avatar
reno dakota
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:30 am

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#449 Post by reno dakota » Thu Jun 03, 2010 6:08 pm

Gregory wrote:
reno dakota wrote:The possibility of great films being supported by only one person has been a problem in every round of the lists project
Is that true? I was under the impression that in some of the more recent rounds, a film couldn't place on the list unless a few people voted for it (and possibly not even then).
I'm not suggesting that we ever allowed one-vote wonders onto the aggregate list because, as domino explained, this has always been explicitly against the rules. What I'm talking about here are the 'orphans' that appear in the also-rans and get discussed in the darlings thread.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Pre 1920s List Discussion and Suggestions

#450 Post by swo17 » Thu Jun 03, 2010 6:27 pm

I don't know what good it does to pimp Love & Journalism or Ingmar's Son in our combined list if it still doesn't change the fact that, much as I might want to, I can't see either of them.

The combined list speaks to the tastes of the group. If you couldn't get one single other soul to squeeze in one of your favorites, whether it's because others didn't love it, didn't bother to see it, or flat out couldn't see it, the fact remains that you are the only sad panda that cares about it.

Post Reply