joachimt wrote: ↑
December 16th, 2018, 10:18 am
cinewest wrote: ↑
December 16th, 2018, 9:56 am
joachimt wrote: ↑
December 16th, 2018, 9:44 am
Well, not counting episodes it was 106, but still, if you want to get technical about it......
To me "hundreds" means X times 100 where X equals at least 2. When I use the plural form of things I always mean at least 2. If I had one apple and a piece of another apple (but less than half), which equals something between 1.0 and 1.5, I wouldn't call them apples. 146 is closer to 1x100 than to 2x100, so the order of magnitude of 146 is 1x10^2 and not 2x10^2, which means a single 10^2. So mathematically 146 isn't hundreds to me.
But sure, I have seen quite a lot of movies, but that doesn't mean I've likely seen your favorites. There are thousands (I didn't do the math on this) of movies from 2006, so a lot to choose from and your #1, #2 and #5 weren't on my radar.
And that speaks to my original point, which is why aren't those films on the radar of cinephiles who have seen so many films from this year?
Because there are soooooo many movies to watch and not only from 2006. A lot of my watches from that year are mainstream stuff I watched when I wasn't on iCM yet. Back then I watched more recent stuff. I was already watching lots of classics, but after discovering iCM my watches spread out even more over the complete history of cinema.
I don't know your numbers, but you always sound like a huge cinephile to me. I can't believe anyone who's so passionate about cinema still hasn't seen Sunrise, Bicycle Thieves, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Man with a Movie Camera, Playtime, M, Come and See, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, etc...
This is not criticism on your watching choices, but still I find that much more surprising than cinephiles not having an obscure title like Sehnsucht (unofficial check, less than 50 checks) on their radar. I think I heard of Ostrov before, but to me it's just another of thousands of movies that are only on one official list. I have no reason to choose watching this over a lot of others. I might have if others vote for it as well though and it ends up in the final results.
I've rated fewer than 3000 movies, though I have seen quite a few more that I can't remember well enough to assess (including a few that you mention above). It's also true that there are still many old classics and essential filmmakers I need/want to delve into (I have over 200 films on my "to see" list that are pre-90's classics).
I tend to see the most readily accessible first (last night, for example, I watched Orphuls' Le Plaisir (because I had the dvd), which was enjoyable but not outstanding, especially for Orphuls.
I also tend to see many more contemporary films because I am more interested in where film is today, though in the late 70's, early 80's I began my first real foray into the classics at the same time vis-a-vis about 15 movie theaters where I lived that showed double feature reprisals.
My primary resources at the moment are Netflix and Amazon Prime, though when I lived in SF, for years it was the numerous film festivals in the area, which is where I first saw both Ostrov and Sehnsucht (I love the thrill of discovery)
Personally, I don't find the "check feature" to be the best indicator of what to see, not only because of the numerous overrated films that are publicized through it, but because there are so many better films (like the ones I have mentioned) that are marginalized.
Though Sehnsucht may only have 50 checks, it has been spoken about in Sight and Sound magazine as one of the top 50 standouts of the 00's.
Coming back to my original point, my surprise is that avowed cinephiles who have seen more than 100 films from 2006, alone, have not discovered the films I have mentioned, though perhaps the governing "check" feature explains part of the reason.