St. Gloede wrote: ↑
April 22nd, 2020, 9:30 pm
How can you say you respect the project, but then call it the most "unserious" list?
Why would those two things be incongruent? I have massive respect for my own personal lists, but for the purpose of the site, they are also completely unserious.
The purpose of official checks is to create a diverse portfolio of lists that interest the various segments of the userbase and encourages exploration.
Maybe. If that was really the purpose, why are lists like “Alfred Hitchcock filmography” and “the mindfuck list” not official? People seem pretty keen on those, and there’s a lot to explore in both. But DtC is obviously largely of interest to users of this forum/voters on the poll, that much is obvious from looking at users who have completed more than half of the list. I think the criteria that has largely been pursued is standards of quality, relevance and importance to film history/particular areas of film, an so on. Obviously DtC sticks out like a sore thumb if we are in any way engaged in anything remotely close to the “Priesthood of Curation”.
DtC is one of the most unique lists on the website
Great! I would argue that there are a number of lists the have a more unusual and unique range of films, but I agree, DtC is really interesting sometimes.
making it one of the most important lists as far as I am concerned.
why does that make it a candidate for official status though? Would you also consider something like the The Film Fanatic lists or PdA’s Anti-canon?
It highlights films that have been left out of the core Canon, and showcases community approval.
Again, plenty of lists do that. That’s also the primary domain of the 500<400, though it’s not in the mission statement. There are any number of films that many users can highlight as “deserving more attention”. That doesn’t mean our underrated favourites deserve another official list. As for community approval, you mean the approval of 79 internet users unconnected with any organisation or publication? With only the approval of 8 such users necessary for inclusion? And likely some films in the final list that didn’t even get unanimous approval from 8 users?
How is it random? How is it not rigorous? This is a decade long project spanning several forums, with a very rigorous process with nomination limits, "term limits", a clear rating process and of course a rating cut-off - which grows higher and higher the more films get a shot at being included.
Sure it’s rigourous for a random project conducted by internet users. But in what way is the selection process a meaningful attempt at the stated goal of “doubling the canon”? I made the case before that a single user could go in with a strong bias, rating a particular subset of film very low in every single case, which would reshape the whole list. I wouldn’t be surprised if that sort of thing is already in play. To me it looks like a vehicle for highlighting obscure favourites of forum users. I’ve seen a lot of the list, according to ICM the most of anyone. One of the things I’ve noticed is the prevalence of many French films that look like obvious favourites of yours, and doubtless your love for a certain subset of French movies has had a significant role in shaping the list. Great! But that doesn’t seem rigourous to me.
In terms of key service it works as quality control on less seen films, this is an essential service and the rating methodology separates it from the more common toplists compilations, which highlight different films - both methodologies are good. And of course, the rating methology is set up to only highlight great films as good ends at 2/6.
This is really the appeal of DtC. It relies on the discernment of a few cinephiles to create a list of little known classics and underrated gems. But we already have the 500<400, a system which is not prone replicate the biases of individuals in the way DtC does. The rating methodology is totally random and unpredictable given the small number of contributors. What constitutes a 9/10 is very different for different people. In terms of ratings, how can such varied source material and small sample size be up to the standards of most other official lists? As pointed out before, it’s arguably worse than the FOK list when that hit rock bottom.
DtC's history makes it an institution, and an obvious curiosity for anyone ready to go beyond the core Canon. There is also a complete absense of any true competitors - and the website would without a doubt have room and space for more similar projects, such as 500<400.
But DtC is also not a “true competitor”, because the list ultimately doesn’t represent any meaningful canon, but an abritrary selection of personal favourites that a handful of internet users agree on.