Fergenaprido wrote: ↑June 25th, 2021, 8:49 pm
Quartoxuma wrote: ↑June 25th, 2021, 8:11 pm
Edit: either way I think the list is a mess and has many edge cases.
The best summary of the Vogel list thus far
This is still on my radar, I just haven't managed to set aside the time to pick up where I left off. I'm a perfectionist and very detail-oriented, so it will take some time, but I do aim to finish before the summer is out. I have a bunch of other things going on right now as well, though (some of which should hopefully wrap up at the end of June).
No worries. I appreciate you taking the time. When I went through it, there were so many inconsistencies within each version and some more between the versions. This list has been in a weird state for quite some time.
There used to be a website where someone transferred the content of the book. That was used to create a PDF and this is the main source for practically every information floating around the web. I think there was probably some kind of register with every movie named and thus this version of the list was created.
@Apu: I can't really speak to your example since I don't know that list well. In the end, I don't think consistency across the whole platform ICM is really that important. To me, each list has to be judged independently. What did the author/s try to convey? What is the canon they want to frame? For me in this case it is critical to understand what Vogel wanted to accomplish. He wanted to demonstrate how film uses the tools of subversion to create shock and terror in the viewer and undermine held beliefs. When it comes to other lists, maybe there needs to be a discussion about them as well. I am not too interested in those 1000+ film lists and would rather see smaller lists with a more concise theme. Vogels list is in that sense magical to me, as he often picks the non obvious choices (some of them have gathered next to no interest over the last 50 years).
I'd much rather have 'Vase de noces' on the list, which Vogel clearly embraced as part of his canon (though not in the first published version) than 'Deep Throat' which he memorized as being
unique in no respect except for the impossible anatomical talents of its star, Linda Lovelace (there has never been deeper penetration anywhere)
(Pervy Amos at his best)
This is what Vogel had to say in the second edition about 'Vase de notes' (my translation):
A young farmhand and a hog. Tenderness, Lust, Copulation. The birth of piglets, which the man lovingly raises and slaughters, triggering the hog's suicide. The man, who from every so often produces, cooks and eats his feces (in front of the camera) tries to kill himself by self-burial, but fails despite the invading ants. Hereon he hangs himself and by some miracle ascends into heaven. No dialogue, just the sounds of nature, salaciousness, defecation, Monteverdi, Perotinus.
At the core of this significant, deeply human film, profoundly disturbing to most, lies a scandalous, tragic assertion of great poetic virtue and originality - a sensitive tribute to the outsider, an anthem for fortune and affirmation of life. Only those, who have no eyes to see, will be unable to recognize the deep moral duty of this work.
Full quote for 'Mona' where he mentions 'Deep Throat':
The incursion of hardcore sex into the commercial film market has brought with it the elevation of one of the most common, most lusted-after and most "forbidden" sex acts -- fellatio -- to the status of a profitable commodity. A 1972 newcomer to the scene, Gerard Damiano's Deep Throat, turned a $24,000 production budget (three days shooting in motel rooms) into a multi-million dollar profit that increased every time the police or would-be censors went after it without (at least initially) succeeding. However while this latter film -- now world-famous as the prototype of "fellatio" films -- is unique in no respect except for the impossible anatomical talents of its star, Linda Lovelace (there has never been deeper penetration anywhere) -- Mona must be recorded as the pioneer and in every respect a superior work.
In this film, unlike Deep Throat, the challenge of the topic is taken seriously and the sexual activity riveted on it, as we observe the heroine in action in bedrooms, cinemas, back yards, wherever the opportunity can be created. There is an edge of abandon and desperation to her that whets the appetite of frustrated men and helps to define the film as a commercial product, in disproportionally large demand solely because society will not freely accept human activities as human.