Welcome to the ICM Forum.
Check out our Magazine

If you notice any issues please post in the Q&A thread. Email issue should be fixed. If you encounter this issue, contact PeacefulAnarchy
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 54 released July 1st: The Disappointment That is Leos Carax' Annette)
iCinema Magazine: WE ARE LIVE! (We just need more content)
ICMForum Film Festival 2022: Mon Nov 14 - Dec 12
Polls: 1990s (Results), Germany (May 30th), 2021 (Jun 30th), New Zealand (Jul 3rd), Swan Songs (Jun 30th), 1962 (Jul 30th), Performers (Jul 31st), Unofficial Checks (Jul 31st)
Challenges: Canadian, Unofficial Movies, Personal Toplists
About: Welcome All New Members, Terms of Use, Q&A

Run The Director Challenge (Official, June 2022)

User avatar
shugs
Donator
Posts: 961
Joined: November 15th, 2014, 7:00 am
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Run The Director Challenge (Official, June 2022)

#1

Post by shugs »

Image
Description, rules and bonus challenges taken from last year's challenge. Thanks, Lonewolf!

Ever since the film critics of the Cahiers du cinéma began to look back on prior generations of filmmakers to apply the auteur theory (the idea originally pioneered by director Max Reinhardt in the 1910’s of the director as author of a film conveying a unique artistic vision throughout their filmography), a brighter spotlight has been shone on the role of the director as the nexus of the movie production, viewing the film as a conduit for the director’s vision and the actors and crew merely puppets of a master’s complex machinations.

Of course not all directors are created equal. Some like Stanley Kubrick and James Cameron truly are known to be the exacting “my way or the highway” type of filmmaker honored by the French New Wave while some directors like Rainer Werner Fassbinder and John Cassavetes have much more of a collaborative relationship of empowerment with their actors and crew. Of course, many directors fall somewhere in between as well. Some are more journeymen for hire, churning out filmed spec scripts for a studio looking to make a quick buck. Some have had their original sensibilities twisted by the studio system in a more marketable product for the masses. Some just gravitate to whatever they can get made whether they’re passionate about it or not. But at the end of the day, any of the types of director mentioned above may have some interest to be gleaned from a dive into their works.

For this challenge, we’re taking a page from Cahiers du cinéma and putting that spotlight on directors throughout film history. The goal of this challenge is to explore a director’s cinematic achievements and observe and highlight the common artistic themes and recurring motifs that the director may employ throughout their career.

Now let’s pay close attention to the rules on this one. They are a little more involved than the typical challenge here!
Rules:
- You have to watch a minimum of three films from the same director for them to count.
- For anthologies and co-directed features, any director listed according to IMDB may count as an entry for a given director, but may not be used for more than one director. Example: King King (1933) could count toward either a run of Ernest B. Schoedsack or Merian C. Cooper films. But you could not use King Kong as one of the entries for both. The same would apply to an anthology such as Eros where it could count as an entry for Wong Kar-Wai, Steven Soderbergh or Michael Antonioni but not all three.
- Each feature film (over 40 minutes) counts as one entry.
- 80 minutes of short films or miniseries/TV episodes counts as one entry. (You can combine minutes from different directors to get to 80 minutes, but only if one of those directors has less than 80 minutes of shorts and episodes available. This also can't count as one of the required first three entries. The entry will count as an entry for the director with the most minutes in that entry.)
- Different episodes of miniseries or TV series can be combined to be worth multiple points, but you need at least three different works for a director entry to be valid. This rule does not apply to anthology series (Small Axe, Dekalog, Black Mirror).
Example
VALID ENTRY - 3 different works, 7 total points
1. Ex Machina - 2014 - 1 point
2. Annihilation - 2018 - 1 point
3-7. Devs - 2020 - E01-08 - 5 points

NOT VALID ENTRY - 2 different works, 6 total points
1. Ex Machina - 2014 - 1 point
2-6. Devs - 2020 - E01-08 - 5 points
- Films must be watched one at a time and at single speed (not sped up).
- Rewatches are allowed and are good for the soul.
- Please include year of release when listing your viewings.
- Please indicate each director when listing your viewings otherwise your score will NOT be included in the leaderboard.

- When beginning a new run, please declare the director the run is for and post a minimum of three films from the director to start the run. You can return to a previously run director in future posts with as many films as you want.

Also, the swans songs poll will be held in June, if you want to take this into consideration when choosing your views.

Movies watched this challenge:
:ICM: :letbxd:

BONUS CHALLENGE #1: ICM Watches the TSPDT Top 250 Directors!
A challenge for us as a group to see how many of the Top 250 Directors according to TSPDT we can hit during this challenge! I will cross out completed directors in the list below.
List of Directors 42/250
1. Alfred Hitchcock
2. Orson Welles
3. Stanley Kubrick
4. Federico Fellini
5. Jean-Luc Godard
6. Francis Ford Coppola
7. Ingmar Bergman
8. Jean Renoir
9. John Ford
10. Akira Kurosawa
11. Martin Scorsese
12. Yasujiro Ozu
13. Luis Buñuel
14. Andrei Tarkovsky
15. Charles Chaplin
16. Billy Wilder
17. Robert Bresson
18. Carl Theodor Dreyer
19. F.W. Murnau
20. Michelangelo Antonioni
21. Howard Hawks
22. Fritz Lang
23. François Truffaut
24. Steven Spielberg
25. Sergei Eisenstein
26. Kenji Mizoguchi
27. David Lynch
28. Roberto Rossellini
29. Woody Allen
30. Luchino Visconti
31. Alain Resnais
32. David Lean
33. Vittorio De Sica
34. Roman Polanski
35. Wong Kar-wai
36. John Cassavetes
37. Ernst Lubitsch
38. Sergio Leone
39. Abbas Kiarostami
40. Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger
41. Ridley Scott
42. Jean Vigo
43. Max Ophüls
44. Satyajit Ray
45. Terrence Malick
46. Robert Altman
47. Werner Herzog
48. Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly
49. Hou Hsiao-hsien
50. Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
51. Buster Keaton
52. Pier Paolo Pasolini
53. Rainer Werner Fassbinder
54. John Huston
55. D.W. Griffith
56. Quentin Tarantino
57. Jacques Tati
58. Krzysztof Kieslowski
59. Dziga Vertov
60. Bernardo Bertolucci
61. Michael Curtiz
62. Chris Marker
63. Paul Thomas Anderson
64. Sam Peckinpah
65. Edward Yang
66. Frank Capra
67. Vincente Minnelli
68. Lars von Trier
69. Nicholas Ray
70. Wim Wenders
71. Leo McCarey
72. Chantal Akerman
73. Carol Reed
74. Preston Sturges
75. Victor Fleming
76. David Cronenberg
77. Michael Haneke
78. Elia Kazan
79. Marcel Carné
80. Eric Rohmer
81. Milos Forman
82. Béla Tarr
83. Douglas Sirk
84. Hayao Miyazaki
85. Erich von Stroheim
86. Clint Eastwood
87. Claire Denis
88. Jean-Pierre Melville
89. Apichatpong Weerasethakul
90. Nicolas Roeg
91. Victor Erice
92. Pedro Almodóvar
93. Agnès Varda
94. Jacques Rivette
95. Jacques Demy
96. Brian De Palma
97. Jacques Tourneur
98. Josef von Sternberg
99. Joseph L. Mankiewicz
100. George Cukor
101. Sidney Lumet
102. James Cameron
103. Claude Lanzmann
104. John Carpenter
105. Glauber Rocha
106. Theo Angelopoulos
107. Gillo Pontecorvo
108. Spike Lee
109. William Wyler
110. King Vidor
111. Jim Jarmusch
112. Jane Campion
113. Jean Eustache
114. David Fincher
115. Ken Loach
116. Richard Linklater
117. George A. Romero
118. Mike Leigh
119. William Friedkin
120. George Lucas
121. Michael Cimino
122. Jean-Marie Straub & Danièle Huillet
123. Ang Lee
124. Robert Flaherty
125. Mikio Naruse
126. Jia Zhangke
127. Terry Gilliam
128. Zhang Yimou
129. Andrzej Wajda
130. Raoul Walsh
131. Jean Cocteau
132. Otto Preminger
133. Samuel Fuller
134. Maurice Pialat
135. Robert Zemeckis
136. Aleksandr Sokurov
137. Tsai Ming-liang
138. Hal Ashby
139. Robert Aldrich
140. Rob Reiner
141. Wes Anderson
142. Robert Wise
143. Michael Snow
144. Peter Weir
145. Alexander Dovzhenko
146. Gus Van Sant
147. Arthur Penn
148. Alexander Mackendrick
149. Henri-Georges Clouzot
150. Stan Brakhage
151. Nagisa Oshima
152. James Whale
153. Todd Haynes
154. Christopher Nolan
155. Michael Mann
156. Mike Nichols
157. Sergei Parajanov
158. Abel Gance
159. Manoel de Oliveira
160. Terence Davies
161. Leos Carax
162. Louis Malle
163. Frederick Wiseman
164. John Boorman
165. Elem Klimov
166. Tobe Hooper
167. Errol Morris
168. Anthony Mann
169. Jean-Pierre Dardenne & Luc Dardenne
170. Emir Kusturica
171. Luis García Berlanga
172. Alfonso Cuarón
173. Fei Mu
174. George Miller
175. Michael Powell
176. Joseph Losey
177. Ousmane Sembene
178. Pedro Costa
179. George Stevens
180. Peter Bogdanovich
181. Kathryn Bigelow
182. Tim Burton
183. Don Siegel
184. Georges Franju
185. Shohei Imamura
186. Tod Browning
187. Paul Verhoeven
188. Merian C. Cooper & Ernest B. Schoedsack
189. Bob Fosse
190. Chen Kaige
191. Lucrecia Martel
192. Andy Warhol
193. Mikhail Kalatozov
194. Victor Sjöström
195. Fred Zinnemann
196. G.W. Pabst
197. Peter Jackson
198. Bong Joon-ho
199. Michel Gondry
200. Jonathan Demme
201. Dario Argento
202. René Clair
203. Jacques Becker
204. John Schlesinger
205. Humphrey Jennings
206. Jean Rouch
207. Robert Hamer
208. Ritwik Ghatak
209. King Hu
210. David Hand
211. Aki Kaurismäki
212. Nuri Bilge Ceylan
213. Lindsay Anderson
214. Claude Chabrol
215. Ermanno Olmi
216. Robert Wiene
217. Oliver Stone
218. Harold Ramis
219. John Woo
220. Sydney Pollack
221. Francesco Rosi
222. Blake Edwards
223. Tomás Gutiérrez Alea
224. Georges Méliès
225. Charles Burnett
226. Frank Borzage
227. Mel Brooks
228. Louis Feuillade
229. Philippe Garrel
230. George Roy Hill
231. Steven Soderbergh
232. Djibril Diop Mambéty
233. John Landis
234. Lee Chang-dong
235. Sofia Coppola
236. Aleksey German
237. Raúl Ruiz
238. Ken Russell
239. Takeshi Kitano
240. Peter Watkins
241. Guillermo del Toro
242. Boris Barnet
243. Sam Raimi
244. Abel Ferrara
245. Danny Boyle
246. Lana Wachowski & Lilly Wachowski
247. Edgar G. Ulmer
248. Wang Bing
249. Alan J. Pakula
250. Nelson Pereira dos Santos
BONUS CHALLLENGE #2: Deep
This bonus challenge awards the users who watch the most films from a single director.

For this bonus challenge the 80 minutes rules for short and episodes does not apply. Every different miniseries/tv-series/short counts as one entry (2 episodes of the same series will count only once).
DEEP
DirectorParticipant(s)Count
Walter Hillshugs12
Aleksey BalabanovDudeLanez10
Michael Curtizflavo50009
Ulli Lommelflavo50009
Akira Kurosawamorrison-dylan-fan8
Miklós JancsóSt. Gloede8
William Wylerblocho8
Christian-JaqueRolandKirkSunglasses7
Tony ScottLonewolf20037
Abel Ferraraflavo50006
Anthony AsquithRolandKirkSunglasses6
Ernst Lubitschmorrison-dylan-fan6
Fernando Di Leoflavo50006
Hal Needhamflavo50006
Julien DuvivierRolandKirkSunglasses6
Alan RobertsMinkin5
Elio PetriSt. Gloede5
George Cukorflavo50005
Lee Grantororama5
Nico Mastorakisflavo50005
Steve McQueenblocho5
William Greféflavo50005
Yasuzô MasumuraRolandKirkSunglasses5
Abbas Kiarostamiororama4
Anders Thomas Jensensol4
Barry Levinsonflavo50004
Bill Condonflavo50004
Bo WiderbergDudeLanez4
Carol Reedflavo50004
Emir KusturicaSt. Gloede4
Hiroshi ShimizuRolandKirkSunglasses4
Jesús Francomorrison-dylan-fan4
Joachim Triershugs4
Martin ScorseseLonewolf20034
Michael Bayflavo50004
Philippe GarrelDudeLanez4
Riccardo Fredaflavo50004
Ruben Östlundsol4
Sam RaimiLonewolf20034
Shunji Iwaiflavo50004
Sofia Coppolamightysparks4
Stanislaw RózewiczSt. Gloede4
Terence YoungRogerTheMovieManiac884
Akiva Schafferflavo50003
Alfred HitchcockSilga sol3
Anthony Mannororama3
Antoine Fuquaflavo5000 Silga3
Baltasar Kormákursol3
Brian De PalmaSilga3
Charles Frendmorrison-dylan-fan3
Christian de Chalongejdidaco3
Claude BerriRolandKirkSunglasses3
Claude GorettaSt. Gloede3
Clint EastwoodSilga3
Danièle Huillet & Jean-Marie Straubjdidaco3
Danny Pangflavo50003
David CronenbergSilga3
David Finchervortexsurfer3
Don Coscarelliflavo50003
Don Dohlerflavo50003
Don Sharpflavo50003
Edgar G. UlmerRogerTheMovieManiac883
Edward L. CahnRogerTheMovieManiac883
Eizô Sugawajdidaco3
Erich von Stroheimflavo50003
Eugenio MartínRogerTheMovieManiac883
Felix E. FeistRogerTheMovieManiac883
Godfrey Hoflavo50003
Gordon DouglasRogerTheMovieManiac883
Gustaf MolanderDudeLanez3
Hasse EkmanRolandKirkSunglasses3
Henning Carlsenjdidaco3
Henry KosterRogerTheMovieManiac883
Ivan Passervortexsurfer3
Jan TroellDudeLanez3
Jean Renoirflavo50003
Jean-Pierre Dardenne & Luc DardenneDudeLanez mightysparks3
Joe Dantevortexsurfer3
John CarpenterSilga3
John Fordororama3
John McNaughtonflavo50003
John WooSilga3
Juan Antonio Bardemflavo50003
Kaneto Shindôjdidaco3
Keisuke Kinoshitajdidaco3
Kenneth BranaghChrisReynolds3
Kon Ichikawajdidaco RolandKirkSunglasses3
Kô Nakahirajdidaco3
Kôji Wakamatsujdidaco3
Larry Jordanjdidaco3
Lee Chang-dongDudeLanez3
Lewis GilbertRogerTheMovieManiac883
Louis MalleSt. Gloede3
Lucky McKeeflavo50003
Mani Kaulororama3
Marcel VarnelRogerTheMovieManiac883
Marco Bellocchiojdidaco3
Mark Watersvortexsurfer3
Markku Lehmuskalliojdidaco3
Mary Lambertflavo50003
Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburgerflavo50003
Monte Hellmanjdidaco3
Nicolas Winding Refnsol3
Orson Wellesororama3
Otto Premingersol3
Pantelis VoulgarisSt. Gloede3
Paul Schraderblocho jdidaco3
Pawel Pawlikowskivortexsurfer3
Peter Hyamsshugs3
Peter Jacksonflavo50003
Phil Alden RobinsonSilga3
Radu Munteanshugs3
Raffaello Matarazzojdidaco3
Rob Schmidtflavo50003
Robert Bressonororama3
Robert Hartford-DavisRogerTheMovieManiac883
Robert Zemeckisshugs3
Roger CormanRogerTheMovieManiac883
Samuel FullerRogerTheMovieManiac883
Sergio Martinoflavo50003
Sidney LumetSilga3
Steven SoderberghSilga vortexsurfer3
Steven SpielbergSilga3
Tage DanielssonDudeLanez3
Tai Katôjdidaco3
Takashi Ishiiflavo50003
Tatsumi Kumashirojdidaco3
Terence Fishermorrison-dylan-fan3
Terry Jonesflavo50003
Thorold DickinsonRogerTheMovieManiac883
Tommy Wirkolablocho sol3
Volker Schlöndorffflavo50003
Werner Herzogblocho3
William A. Wellmanororama3
William Castleflavo50003
William FriedkinDudeLanez3
Woody AllenSilga3
BONUS CHALLLENGE #3: Wide
This bonus challenges awards the user who completes the most different directors.
WIDE
RankParticipantCount
1flavo500037
2jdidaco20
3RogerTheMovieManiac8813
3Silga13
5DudeLanez9
6ororama8
6RolandKirkSunglasses8
8sol7
8St. Gloede7
10vortexsurfer6
11blocho5
11morrison-dylan-fan5
11shugs5
14Lonewolf20033
15mightysparks2
16ChrisReynolds1
16Minkin1
Participants
RankingParticipantScore
1flavo5000147
2jdidaco60
3RogerTheMovieManiac8840
4Silga39
5RolandKirkSunglasses37
6DudeLanez36
7St. Gloede30
8ororama27
9shugs25
10morrison-dylan-fan24
10sol24
12blocho22
13vortexsurfer18
14Lonewolf200315
15mightysparks7
16Minkin5
17ChrisReynolds3
Last edited by shugs on July 3rd, 2022, 7:52 pm, edited 38 times in total.
User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 13891
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#2

Post by St. Gloede »

Run the Director is usually the best challenge of the year along with DtC fo me, so I am really looking forward to this one.

I have not yet considered which directors I will focus on, but with June coming up in less than 2 days I certainly need to prep.
User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 32260
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#3

Post by mightysparks »

Hoping to join this time finally but I'm not in the mood for films a lot of the time so whether I'll get more than 1 (or even 1) in will be a mystery :P
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | Letterboxd | Linktree | TSZDT

Image
User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 14492
Joined: December 29th, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#4

Post by Lonewolf2003 »

Thanks for hosting, shugs. I will be in, but will be busy so won’t be able to compete much. Also why I couldn’t host it myself this time.

A little evaluation lessons from last time, do with this what you want ;)

1. I would make an exception for the mini-/tv series 80 minute rule and let a complete series count for just one point in this challenge. Cause a series counts as one (unified) work from that director, so should in this challenge only count for 1 point no matter how many episodes/minutes it is in total (since there is no overal leadership board anymore I think it’s even less a problem to change the rules a bit for this challenge).

2. Having every short or mini-/tv-series episode count as one entry for BONUS CHALLLENGE #2: Deep makes this BC easy to win for short watchers. (maybe this was also because it ran simultaneously with Silents and Avant-grade last time) Also it makes keeping track of this for the host a bit more work.

3. Last time we didn’t even come close to finishing the top 250, so a top 100 might be more do-able.


Also, this is for everyone: in June the favorite directors swans songs poll will be held, this challenge is a good opportunity to watch the final feature when running a director and expand your nominations ;)
User avatar
shugs
Donator
Posts: 961
Joined: November 15th, 2014, 7:00 am
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#5

Post by shugs »

Lonewolf2003 wrote: May 30th, 2022, 4:53 pm Thanks for hosting, shugs. I will be in, but will be busy so won’t be able to compete much. Also why I couldn’t host it myself this time.

A little evaluation lessons from last time, do with this what you want ;)

1. I would make an exception for the mini-/tv series 80 minute rule and let a complete series count for just one point in this challenge. Cause a series counts as one (unified) work from that director, so should in this challenge only count for 1 point no matter how many episodes/minutes it is in total (since there is no overal leadership board anymore I think it’s even less a problem to change the rules a bit for this challenge).

2. Having every short or mini-/tv-series episode count as one entry for BONUS CHALLLENGE #2: Deep makes this BC easy to win for short watchers. (maybe this was also because it ran simultaneously with Silents and Avant-grade last time) Also it makes keeping track of this for the host a bit more work.

3. Last time we didn’t even come close to finishing the top 250, so a top 100 might be more do-able.


Also, this is for everyone: in June the favorite directors swans songs poll will be held, this challenge is a good opportunity to watch the final feature when running a director and expand your nominations ;)
1. I've been thinking about this since I want to watch the Devs miniseries, which would net me about 5 points for Alex Garland, but without really exploring his filmography, which would go against the spirit of the challenge, imo. So, I'd say:

VALID ENTRY - 3 different works, 7 total points
1. Ex Machina - 2014 - 1 point
2. Annihilation - 2018 - 1 point
3-7. Devs - 2020 - E01-08 - 5 points

NOT VALID ENTRY - 2 different works, 6 total points
1. Ex Machina - 2014 - 1 point
2-6. Devs - 2020 - E01-08 - 5 points

So, basically keep the standard point allocation, but requiring at least three different works.

2. Slightly altered the rules for this. Multiple episodes of the same series now count as only one point. Will keep the shorts as one point. Everyone's a winner when it comes to this bonus challenge as far as I'm concerned. I'm planning to give each participant a reward at the end based on the directors they've watched the most. :woot:

3. Eh, I'll keep the full list. Wonder how it will fare now with the TSPDT challenge running in parallel.
blocho
Donator
Posts: 6152
Joined: July 20th, 2014, 6:00 am
Contact:

#6

Post by blocho »

Hey Shugs -- I understand the new rules regarding (mini)series that you explained above. But can I check what Steve McQueen's "Small Axe" would qualify as? I understand that it's an anthology series with five unrelated episodes. Would that count as "different works" or would it be considered one work?
User avatar
shugs
Donator
Posts: 961
Joined: November 15th, 2014, 7:00 am
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#7

Post by shugs »

blocho wrote: May 30th, 2022, 9:51 pm Hey Shugs -- I understand the new rules regarding (mini)series that you explained above. But can I check what Steve McQueen's "Small Axe" would qualify as? I understand that it's an anthology series with five unrelated episodes. Would that count as "different works" or would it be considered one work?
For anthology series, every episode counts as a different work.
User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 6011
Joined: July 10th, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

#8

Post by flavo5000 »

St. Gloede wrote: May 30th, 2022, 9:44 am Run the Director is usually the best challenge of the year along with DtC fo me, so I am really looking forward to this one.

I have not yet considered which directors I will focus on, but with June coming up in less than 2 days I certainly need to prep.
Let me help you out:
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/godf ... flavo5000/

:lol: :lol: :lol: :banana: :banana: :banana:
User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 14384
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#9

Post by sol »

1. Strangers on a Train (1951) Alfred Hitchcock REVISION
2. North by Northwest (1959) Alfred Hitchcock REVISION
3. Rebecca (1940) Alfred Hitchcock REVISION

Image Image Image

Alfred Hitchcock

What has been said about Alfred Hitchcock that not has been said before? While never the most subtle of directors, Hitch was regarded as the Master of Suspense for a reason, and each of these three films show why even if as narratives they are very different from each other. While largely a psychological thriller, Rebecca has some great moments of suspense, particularly when Danvers is talking to her by the windowsill and trying to entice her into jumping off the ledge. In Strangers on a Train, there is a very suspenseful sequence that simply involves someone trying to recover a lighter from a drain. And North by Northwest has an amazing auction scene that is every bit as funny as suspenseful as Cary Grant manages to avoid the clutches of the bad guys.

While made around a decade apart from each other, there are also some other curious similarities between these three. Strangers on a Train of course starts on Granger and Walker's feet, and there is a similar part in Rebecca during its courtroom trial stretch in which only see men walking from the waste down. Some of the sweeping shots of Manderlay in Rebecca also feel similar to the way Hitchcock tackles buildings in North by Northwest, most notably when Grant runs out of the UN building, seen from birds-eye-view with Bernard Herrmann's swelling score seeming to taunt him. And of course, music is quite pivotal to Strangers on a Train too, though that one is probably always destined to be remembered for Walker's performance - and with good reason.
|iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | Gold Derby
Image
Long live the new flesh!
User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 14384
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#10

Post by sol »

Looks like I'm first in again this year. Last year I was first in due to my city going into Coronavirus lockdown and having better nothing to do. This time it's because I'm Covid positive and have nothing better to do while in isolation. The correlation between the pandemic for me and this challenge is rather interesting to say the least.
|iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | Gold Derby
Image
Long live the new flesh!
vortexsurfer
Posts: 639
Joined: February 4th, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#11

Post by vortexsurfer »

Pawel Pawlikowski

1. Last Resort (2000) - 8/10
2. The Woman in the Fifth (2011) - 7/10
3. Ida (2013) - 9/10
User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 6011
Joined: July 10th, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

#12

Post by flavo5000 »

sol wrote: June 2nd, 2022, 6:08 am Looks like I'm first in again this year. Last year I was first in due to my city going into Coronavirus lockdown and having better nothing to do. This time it's because I'm Covid positive and have nothing better to do while in isolation. The correlation between the pandemic for me and this challenge is rather interesting to say the least.
Ouch... Sorry to hear that. Having just gone through it myself a few weeks ago, hopefully you'll just feel crappy for a few days and be back to normal.
User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 14384
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#13

Post by sol »

flavo5000 wrote: June 2nd, 2022, 12:45 pm
sol wrote: June 2nd, 2022, 6:08 am Looks like I'm first in again this year. Last year I was first in due to my city going into Coronavirus lockdown and having better nothing to do. This time it's because I'm Covid positive and have nothing better to do while in isolation. The correlation between the pandemic for me and this challenge is rather interesting to say the least.
Ouch... Sorry to hear that. Having just gone through it myself a few weeks ago, hopefully you'll just feel crappy for a few days and be back to normal.
Thanks. So far the symptoms appear to be mild, and they certainly aren't at the forefront of my mind all the time. I keep "forgetting" that I'm Covid positive, which is probably a good sign. Been watching some good films too, of course, which helps take my mind off things.
|iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | Gold Derby
Image
Long live the new flesh!
User avatar
Cinepolis
Posts: 435
Joined: January 4th, 2019, 8:40 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

#14

Post by Cinepolis »

sol wrote: June 2nd, 2022, 6:08 am Looks like I'm first in again this year. Last year I was first in due to my city going into Coronavirus lockdown and having better nothing to do. This time it's because I'm Covid positive and have nothing better to do while in isolation. The correlation between the pandemic for me and this challenge is rather interesting to say the least.
Interestingly enough, I feel like work has doubled for me since Covid started.
User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 6011
Joined: July 10th, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

#15

Post by flavo5000 »

Michael Curtiz

Image

Michael Curtiz is perhaps more than nearly any other director the quintessential Hollywood renaissance man. Working primarily with Warner Bros., he helped usher in the celebrated Golden Age of Hollywood with classics like Casablanca, The Adventures of Robin Hood, Yankee Doodle Dandy and Angels with Dirty Faces among many, many others (in fact he directed 102 films in Hollywood and 64 films before that in Europe). Curtiz brought with him from Europe a very distinct and fluid visual style informed by German expressionism with high contrast lighting, dutch angles and smooth camera movements that would make him ideally suited to darker genres like film noir and horror. His strong humanist leanings allowed him the veracity of directing sweeping dramas, jocular comedies and brassy musicals with equal aplomb. He had a strong sense of pacing that aided his talents quite well in directing action in films like the aforementioned Robin Hood as well as swashbucklers like Captain Blood and The Sea Hawk. Curtiz' influence can be felt still today as one of the most widely adopted styles of filmmaking cribbed on the planet.

Image
1. Young Man with a Horn (1950)
Kirk Douglas stars in a story loosely based on the life of well-regarded jazz trumpeter Bix Beiderbecke in a tale wrought with heartbreak and melodrama about a man torn between his love of music and his love of two women, the ebullient and charming singer Doris Day and the sultry and conniving Lauren Bacall (who is portrayed as possibly thinly-veiled lesbian or bisexual in an era where that sort of depiction on screen was strictly forbidden). While the plot is a little rambling at times, the three lead actors are all dynamite, especially Bacall who draws the eye in every scene she's in. The ending felt a little cheap given the general arc of the story (and in terms of what actually happened with Biederbecke), but I guess Hollywood has to have their happy endings whether it makes sense or not.

Image
2. This Is the Army (1943)
Ugh... Combining "rah rah" army propaganda and jingoistic tendencies with a "Let's put on a show" storyline that was so common in '30s and '40s Hollywood, throw in some even more insulting stereotypes than you'd usually find and some REALLY half-baked romance, you'll have this painfully terrible bloated mess of everything that was wrong with the Hollywood musical in this era. Oh, and of course Ronald Reagan shows up in it...

Image
3. The Story of Will Rogers (1942)
This movie is one big winking 'aw shucks', and frankly I quite liked it. Humorist Will Rogers as a person certainly had a way with words and a magnetic personality, and this film has an inspired (if obvious) choice in casting Will Rogers Jr, his son, to play the elder Will Rogers. Junior plays his dad nearly to a tee, affecting his style of speech and mannerisms almost flawlessly (and looking a whole lot like him to boot). In a lot of ways, this is a pretty standard biopic, but it captures Rogers' career from his early cowboy days which led to his breakout in home spun comedic stories during a delay in his lasso routine to his role as a leading political satirist that captured the heart of the people, even leading to a begrudging run for president. Will Rogers is an interesting fella, and I couldn't help but get caught up in his tale.

Image
4. Night and Day (1946)
Cary Grant stars as Cole Porter in yet another biopic. This one is also very by-the-numbers, even more than Young Man with a Horn, and I felt like Grant just didn't quite work as Porter for me. Maybe because Grant is such a larger-than-life personality himself that him playing a real person can't help but just feel like Grant being Grant. Still, if you dig Cole Porter, this one is wall-to-wall musical numbers which should delight fans of his work.

Image
5. The Hangman (1959)
A marshal played by Robert Taylor rides into town on the trail of a bank robber who is well-liked in the town. Basically Taylor faces a lot of opposition when he attempts to arrest him. This one is a good example of Curtiz showing off his more humanist tendencies, giving a lot of breathing room in the picture to the character interactions and discussions of redemption and what constitutes right and wrong. For someone coming in wanting the usual gunfights, Indian attacks or cattle stampedes, you may leave disappointed, but really this is actually a pretty solid little character piece.

Image
6. Kid Galahad (1937)
Ah, nothing like a '30s ganster movie with boxing, huh? And of course we have Edward G. Robinson. Surprisingly he isn't playing the lead gangster though (that role went to ol' Bogey in his pre-starring role days when he was cast as the heavy a lot). Instead Robinson is a boxing promoter who finds himself a real champ on his hands that unfortunately has the audacity to put the moves on Robinson's sister, leading to a conflict of interest. This is a pretty solid flick that's well-cast with some nice boxing scenes. The gangster angle feels a little undercooked though.

Image
7. Roughly Speaking (1945)
This one is 100% the Rosalind Russell show, playing a proud and strong-willed woman over the course of her life, following her ups and downs. We see her aspirations to go to college which are set aside to get married and have kids. After her first marriage ends in divorce though, she bounces back and finds a second chance at love with a kind of oddball fella played by Jack Carson. This is the kind of film that seemed to be pretty prevalent in the '30s and '40s but all but died out by the '60s, a kind of character drama without a core plot but instead just following a character or family in their on-going trials and tribulations. It's a competent version of this kind of story and is the sort of film my mom would probably love. Russell embodies this role really well and is definitely worth checking out if you're a fan of hers already.

Image
8. The Comancheros (1961)
I'm not the biggest fan of John Wayne but this jaunty flick, involving Wayne as a Texas Ranger who arrests a generate gambler who opens the film killing the son of a politician in a duel only to have to begrudgingly team up with him when they're faced with a bigger threat, was pretty watchable overall. I think my enjoyment is in large part due to Stuart Whitman as the gambler Paul Regret (that name's a little on the nose, huh?) who oozes smarm and charm in equal measure and quips like he's Errol Flynn. It's certainly no homerun though with a busy plot and a shoehorned love interest, but it'll do if you're looking for a western you can turn your brain off to.

Image
9. Passage to Marseille (1944)
Woah, this one seems to have everybody from Casablanca except Ingrid Bergman. We have Bogey playing a journalist falsely imprisoned in Devil's Island during WWII but co-starring with him is Claude Raines, Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre! Unfortunately just using the same cast as Casablanca isn't a guarantee that you'll get the same quality. The cinematography is top notch though with Curtiz leaning really hard into his noir tendencies. Unfortunately the plot is just a mess of nested framing stories and uneven characterizations. Still, it's rarely boring even when it's hard to follow due to the solid action sequences. Not a great film but still a solid watch.
Can't Stop, Won't Stop
1. Young Man with a Horn (1950)
2. This Is the Army (1943)
3. The Story of Will Rogers (1942)
4. Night and Day (1946)
5. The Hangman (1959)
6. Kid Galahad (1937)
7. Roughly Speaking (1945)
8. The Comancheros (1961)
9. Passage to Marseille (1944)
User avatar
RolandKirkSunglasses
Posts: 492
Joined: January 15th, 2021, 12:54 pm
Contact:

#16

Post by RolandKirkSunglasses »

Image
Kenji Mizoguchi wrote:people like me and Ozu get films made by hard work, but Shimizu is a genius
Hiroshi Shimizu

His best known films are shot on location, use fluid tracking shots and feature children. Sometimes the preference for mood over narrative can make his films feel unfocused and disjointed, but he doesn't descend to cheap tearjerking tactics.

1. Nobuko (1940)

Like Soseki's novel "Botchan" with a twist, Mieko Takamine moves from the countryside to an upper class city school and clashes with one annoying student, while her superiors and fellow teachers encourage her to drop her accent and conform. Despite the solid acting it gets quite repetitive.

2. Introspection Tower (1941)

Chishu Ryu runs a boarding school for troubled kids where they learn to be good citizens for their parents and the Emperor, culminating in the kids building a large canal near the end of the film. Felt quite long and dull in places but has some lovely photography.

3. Children of the Beehive (1948)

Follows several real-life war orphans as they travel across the country, befriending a repatriated soldier struggling to find work in post-war Japan. Has a great neo-realist feel with some very memorable sequences including one look at bombed-out Hiroshima and one child carrying another on his back so he can finally view the sea.

4. Tokyo Profile (1953)

A young girl gets separated from her mother in upmarket Ginza, Ryo Ikebe (Pale Flower) and a couple other people try to reunite the girl with her mother but it proves harder than usual. Quite a sweet film at times but some of the narrative detours detract from the urgency of the main plot.
User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 13891
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#17

Post by St. Gloede »

Really happy you sought out Tokyo Profile and happy you liked it! Children of the Beehive is my favourite of these 4 as well, and probably my favourite of his entire filmography after Mr Thank You and the underrated silent A Hero of Tokyo.
morrison-dylan-fan
Posts: 1404
Joined: February 6th, 2017, 7:00 am
Contact:

#18

Post by morrison-dylan-fan »

Thanks for hosting shugs.

Image

Charles Frend.

FTV:1: Lease of Life (1954)8.

Returning to the screen after a three year break, Robert Donat gives a heart-breaking performance as Thorne, with Donat putting the long battle he had with chronic asthma into Thorne's battle with a terminal illness, (with Thorne also having to deal with financial struggles, something Donat also faced during the time he had to take away from the screen) as Thorne reevaluates his world-weary attitude,and Donat expresses Thorne deciding to spend the rest of his life, preaching a new live and let live belief.

Following the congregation as they take their seats, director Charles Frend & cinematographer Douglas Slocombe bring a touch of Ealing class to the sermon, in long, graceful wide-shots across the church, landing on close-ups of the locals shocked in the drastic changes of their traditional vicar.Taking things extremely personally when a dying churchgoer ask him to protect his cash, in order for it all to be given to his son, and none to his wife, the screenplay by Frank Baker,Patrick Jenkins and Journey Into Fear (1943-also reviewed) novelist Eric Ambler paint an excellent, delicate character study,which explores how prominent the vicar is in the community, leading to half the locals absolutely trusting him, and the other, gossiping half having doubts, from the shock of Thorne finding a new lease of life.

FTV:2: Johnny Frenchman (1945)8.

Listening in on the radio to the fall of France taking place, the screenplay by Ealing regular T. E. B. Clarke travels to Cornwall for a culture clash Comedy, which places an emphasis on the shared bonds the locals gradually find they have with the French shipping crew, which includes being on the Allies side of WWII.Greeting the French crew with the locals calling them "Froggy" whenever they get the chance, Clarke supplies the crew and the locals with hilarious dialogue in the hard shoulder of disagreement they give each other, which Clarke gradually grinds down, as both sides discover a level of respect for the other.

Filmed on location in the Cornish fishing port of Mevagissey , director Charles Frend & Michael Powell's The Phantom Light (1935-also reviewed) cinematographer Roy Kellino serve up a slice of Ealing class with a wonderful Comedy atmosphere of winding dolly and panning shots bringing a real sense of how tight-knitted the locals are, (a recurring theme in films from Ealing studios) and how brisk the French crew are, in throwing any insult they receive, right back at the locals.Reuniting from The Halfway House the year before, Francoise Rosay and Tom Walls both give fantastic performances as Lanec and Nat, with the duo visible enjoying wrapping one-liners round each other, as they robustly argue like an old married couple, in the culture clash of Johnny and the Frenchman.

FTV:3:Girl on Approval (1962)6.

Aiming at the incoming Kitchen Sink style of British cinema, the screenplay by Kathleen White, (who worked in childcare, with this being her lone credit) attempts to contrast the meek, mild (from the appearance of those looking on the outside) middle class Howland family, with the disenfranchised Sheila. Entering the Howland household hating the very sight of them, White has Shelia act as a snot-nosed git, cutting clothes, smashing the house up, getting into physical fights with the Howland's, stealing/ hiding a large pair of scissors, constantly threatening to leave, (and using this to getting the upper-hand in relationships, just like psychopaths do) and permanently being set on passive-aggressive.

Attempting to show progress near the end of the film between Shelia (played with a real rough edge grit by Annette Whiteley) and Howland, which ring out as false, due to how abruptly and forced-in the sequences feel,each coming straight after scenes of the relationships suffering huge deterioration, while director Charles Frend & future Sam Peckinpah's regular cinematographer John Coquillon unlock an up-close and personal atmosphere of tightly coiled panning shots round the confine house, breaking to stark close-ups,on the girl on approval.
User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 6011
Joined: July 10th, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

#19

Post by flavo5000 »

Danny Pang (of the Pang Brothers)

Image

Yes, Danny Pang is technically the featured director here since one of the three films I watched was directed by him solo, but it's hard to talk about Danny Pang without talking about his twin brother Oxide as well. Together, they have directed eleven films and separately each has directed quite a few more Although they were born in Hong Kong, many of their films are set in Thailand where they moved fairly early in their careers. They both have worked heavily in the horror and crime genres with occcasional spashes of comedy. Both their directing styles tend to be splashy and engaging, using a variety of editing tricks to create feelings of disorientation and frenzy. While they haven't worked on anything together since 2013, here's hoping it won't be too long before they combine their creative juices again to produce something interesting.

Image
10. Gin gwai 10 a.k.a. The Eye 3 (2005) w/ Oxide Pang
The third film in the eye series (also sometimes referred to confusingly as The Eye 10 or The Eye: Infinity) finds the series leaning more heavily into comedy for some reason, centering on a group of friends who discover a book that summons ghosts. They don't take it too seriously until... you know... they start seeing ghosts. This one just really had very little that worked well for me. Despite some occasional interesting visuals, the plot feels extremely episodic and kind of goofy in places. I don't know what possessed the Pang Brothers to take this approach with the third film in this franchise (maybe they were getting bored of traumatized people seeing ghosts?), but it just doesn't work at all.

Image
11. Ah ma yau nan a.k.a. Leave Me Alone (2004)
I have to wonder if this solo-directed film is something of a nod & wink to Danny's brother, Oxide, being about twins, one of whom is studious, gay and responsible while the other hot rods around committing manslaughter in a hit & run. While this was no masterpiece, I actually did like this one fairly well, and unlike The Eye 3, some of the comedy here actually works.

Image
12. Tung ngan a.k.a. The Child's Eye (2010) w/ Oxide Pang
And here the Pang Brothers bounce back with the fourth film in The Eye series, this time jetting the dumb comedy that dragged down the last Eye film. Plot-wise the film is a little sketchy but has some very nicely directed, tension-building horror sequences. Really my biggest gripe with it is that it has an awkward 3D gimmick tied to it in a few places and that the CGI looks pretty ugly at times (which seems to be a common thread with some Pang Brothers movies where their imagination outpaces their budgets). Overall though, I felt this was definitely a step up from The Eye 3 and worth checking out if you like what the Pang Brothers do.
Can't Stop, Won't Stop
1. Young Man with a Horn (1950)
2. This Is the Army (1943)
3. The Story of Will Rogers (1942)
4. Night and Day (1946)
5. The Hangman (1959)
6. Kid Galahad (1937)
7. Roughly Speaking (1945)
8. The Comancheros (1961)
9. Passage to Marseille (1944)
10. Gin gwai 10 a.k.a. The Eye 3 (2005) w/ Oxide Pang
11. Ah ma yau nan a.k.a. Leave Me Alone (2004)
12. Tung ngan a.k.a. The Child's Eye (2010) w/ Oxide Pang
User avatar
DudeLanez
Posts: 838
Joined: August 25th, 2020, 12:22 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#20

Post by DudeLanez »

Gustaf Molander
1. Intermezzo (1936) 5,5/10
2. A Woman's Face (1938) 6/10
3. Ordet (1943) 6/10
:ICM: icm - :letbxd: letterboxd - :imdb: imdb

Challenges in July
Image -> 325/500
User avatar
Silga
Posts: 342
Joined: June 16th, 2021, 10:06 pm
Location: Vilnius, Lithuania
Contact:

#21

Post by Silga »

John Woo TSPDT Top 250

1. Face/Off (1997) 6/10 rewatch
2. Blackjack (1998) 2/10
3. Windtalkers (2002) 7/10

A whirlwind of quality and emotions during this run. Re-visit to the craziness of Face/Off was familiar, but still a lot of fun. Nevertheless, I noticed some missteps this time around and lowered my previous rating to 6.
Blackjack feels nowhere near a quality production. This failed TV pilot was turned into a sloppy TV movie with ridiculous acting and terrible sound. Nothing to remember about it. Already forgotten.
Now with Windtalkers I was more than pleasantly surprised. Nothing of what I heard or read for many years led me to expect a good war picture. What I got, however, was a very kinetic and moving drama about U.S. Marines and, specifically, a signal company with Navajo code talkers at the Pacific Ocean theater of World War II. John Woo directed some incredible fight scenes.
User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 6011
Joined: July 10th, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

#22

Post by flavo5000 »

Martin Scorsese

Image

What’s there to say about Martin Scorsese that hasn’t been combed over, scrutinized, analyzed or illuminated upon dozens of times? Scorsese definitely has certain touchstones in his work: a distinct love of New York City, stories of men pushed to their limits to discover who they truly are, a strong sense of music reverberating throughout his films, and of course those lovely tracking shots. He is possibly the best of the New Hollywood school of filmmaking (although I’m sure there are some Coppola fans chomping at the bit to scream at me) and certainly one of the most prolific and longest-lasting. Sure, he can get a little ‘grumpy old man’ on us these days, but we should all be so lucky to age as Scorsese has and still be able to make films like The Irishman. He’s one of the greats, yeah? With a bullet.

Image
13. My Voyage to Italy (1999)
For this Scorsese run, I thought I’d dig into a side of the man which is often forgotten amidst his tales of gangsters and tough guys, his documentaries of which he’s actually made a decent amount and is quite good at it. My Voyage to Italy is structured very similarly to his Century of Cinema documentary on American cinema. Through a combination of his own personal voiceover and copious clips from the films he loves, we are led through Scorsese’s passion for classic Italian cinema, covering the neo-realist masters like Rosselini and De Sica, the aristocratic and genteel Visconti, the legends like Fellini and Antonioni and many others. If you have even an inkling of an interest in Italian cinema of the ‘40s through ‘60s which many consider a golden period for them, you owe it to yourself to take up Scorsese on this journey.

Image
14. Street Scenes (1970)
Scorsese here captures a pivotal moment in the turning point of Americans against the Vietnam war that focuses on mass protests on Wall Street in the heart of New York. Scorsese pretty effectively is able to put you in the middle of it all, hearing people vent their frustrations and express their emotions of a particular point in time. Scorsese himself, like most of his documentaries interjects a personal touch at the end as he sits down to discuss what they’ve just experienced (with Harvey Keitel and others), unable to process why this is happening but hopeful that a change is coming. If you’ve seen a lot of Vietnam protest documentaries (and there are a LOT of them), then this in general won’t be completely new information to you, but it’s still interesting to see how Scorsese interprets what’s happening around him during this time.

Image
15. American Masters: No Direction Home: Bob Dylan (2005)
Well, after a 4-hour documentary on Italian films, there’s nothing like hunkering down to watch a 4-four doc about Bob Dylan. There have been a few different documentaries made about Dylan, with Pennebaker’s Don’t Look Back being perhaps the most well-known and well-regarded. Pennebaker’s film focused on a particular tour in a turning point in Dylan’s career, showing Dylan at his most enigmatic and mean-spirited, and by the end Dylan comes off like something of an asshole. Scorsese’s film broadens that scope, including a contemporary interview with Dylan as he tries to understand what Dylan was really going through. Showing him from his early career, his inspirations, his growth as an artist as well as his growth in popularity which ultimately was at a far more significant rate than Dylan was obvious comfortable with. This pressure combined with people wanting to pigeonhole Dylan into something he felt like he wasn’t as well as his growing exhaustion with touring and dealing with fans and his growing resentment at others getting successful off his songs while he received anger and vitriol at not giving people what they wanted, it really puts his behavior on that 1965 tour into a context that makes it a lot easier to see where he’s coming from that the original Pennebaker fly-on-the-wall approach may have not been as obvious with. If you are a tried and true Dylan fan, you owe it to yourself to check this out.
Can't Stop, Won't Stop
1. Young Man with a Horn (1950)
2. This Is the Army (1943)
3. The Story of Will Rogers (1942)
4. Night and Day (1946)
5. The Hangman (1959)
6. Kid Galahad (1937)
7. Roughly Speaking (1945)
8. The Comancheros (1961)
9. Passage to Marseille (1944)
10. Gin gwai 10 a.k.a. The Eye 3 (2005) w/ Oxide Pang
11. Ah ma yau nan a.k.a. Leave Me Alone (2004)
12. Tung ngan a.k.a. The Child's Eye (2010) w/ Oxide Pang
13. My Voyage to Italy (1999)
14. Street Scenes (1970)
15. American Masters: No Direction Home: Bob Dylan (2005)
vortexsurfer
Posts: 639
Joined: February 4th, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#23

Post by vortexsurfer »

Steven Soderbergh

4. Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989) - 8/10
5. Kafka (1991) - 6/10
6. King of the Hill (1993) - 9/10

Spoiler
1. Last Resort (Pawel Pawlikowski, 2000) - 8/10
2. The Woman in the Fifth (Pawel Pawlikowski, 2011) - 7/10
3. Ida (Pawel Pawlikowski, 2013) - 9/10
4. Sex, Lies, and Videotape (Steven Soderbergh, 1989) - 8/10
5. Kafka (Steven Soderbergh, 1991) - 6/10
6. King of the Hill (Steven Soderbergh, 1993) - 9/10
Last edited by vortexsurfer on June 5th, 2022, 4:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
shugs
Donator
Posts: 961
Joined: November 15th, 2014, 7:00 am
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#24

Post by shugs »

--- Joachim Trier ---
1. Reprise (2006, 🇳🇴) - 8/10
2. Oslo, August 31st (2011, 🇳🇴) - 6/10
3. Thelma (2017, 🇳🇴) - 6/10
4. The Worst Person in the World (2021, 🇳🇴) - 7/10
User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 14384
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#25

Post by sol »

Spoiler
1. Strangers on a Train (1951) Alfred Hitchcock REVISION
2. North by Northwest (1959) Alfred Hitchcock REVISION
3. Rebecca (1940) Alfred Hitchcock REVISION
4. Laura (1944) Otto Preminger REVISION
5. Anatomy of a Murder (1959) Otto Preminger REVISION
6. Bunny Lake is Missing (1965) Otto Preminger REVISION

Image Image Image

Otto Preminger

Directing everything from lengthy historical dramas to zany comedies, Otto Preminger certainly had quite a varied career and there does not seem to be any consensus on what his third best film is - so this challenge seemed like the perfect time to revisit his two most acclaimed movies as well as the outlier that I would hold up as Preminger's next best. Rewatched after more than 15 years though, Laura was quite a disappointment, and almost put me off revisiting the other two. Luckily I persisted, because Anatomy held up just as well as I recalled, while the 12 years' gap allowed me to forget parts of Bunny Lake is Missing, which made it very delightful to rewatch.

While each of these three Preminger movies are fairly different, they do all have justice and legal procedures in common, which might in fact be one of Preminger's favourite themes considering that he also helmed Advice & Consent. What's more, in each of three films Preminger manages to shine a light on where legal avenues trip up. In Laura, it is a bit more farfetched given the midway twist, but Anatomy is all about Jimmy Stewart playing the legal system and realising that US justice is more about showmanship than the letter of the law. And then we get a film like Bunny Lake where the whole legal process becomes a bit of a plaything in ways best left unspoiled.
|iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | Gold Derby
Image
Long live the new flesh!
User avatar
Minkin
Posts: 868
Joined: January 13th, 2015, 7:00 am
Location: astarikar 4
Contact:

#26

Post by Minkin »

I get and understand the idea behind the rules, but must they really be set in stone?

I think the "if you watch 3 movies by Hitchcock, then watch three by Ford, then you have to watch 3 Hitchcock again to do that run"

the whole thing is absurd, and I protest this idea completely. If we start a run with a director, it should stay valid and you should be able to keep running it.

Otherwise you can do the strategy that I intend to do: wait until near the end of the month and then post your runs, when you know you won't watch anything else by a director. It completely breaks the whole point and spirit of it, but that's the way it is.

So I say just allow us to keep a run going if started, regardless of what else is in the way - as you've put in the effort already, and it can be circumvented by being strategic with what you post and when.

So Im going to watch three by Robert Stevenson, but idk when I'll post them, because who knows if I want to watch four, and I'm not going to start a run again for that purpose. So I'll be as strategic as possible with this - and there's absolutely no reason why I should have to do this.

Anyone else have thoughts on this? :$
Cinema Safari (Currently working on Inyo County, CA + Zimbabwe upgrade) Help recommend me movies to watch) Letterboxd
User avatar
shugs
Donator
Posts: 961
Joined: November 15th, 2014, 7:00 am
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#27

Post by shugs »

Minkin wrote: June 4th, 2022, 12:29 pm I get and understand the idea behind the rules, but must they really be set in stone?

I think the "if you watch 3 movies by Hitchcock, then watch three by Ford, then you have to watch 3 Hitchcock again to do that run"

the whole thing is absurd, and I protest this idea completely. If we start a run with a director, it should stay valid and you should be able to keep running it.

Otherwise you can do the strategy that I intend to do: wait until near the end of the month and then post your runs, when you know you won't watch anything else by a director. It completely breaks the whole point and spirit of it, but that's the way it is.

So I say just allow us to keep a run going if started, regardless of what else is in the way - as you've put in the effort already, and it can be circumvented by being strategic with what you post and when.

So Im going to watch three by Robert Stevenson, but idk when I'll post them, because who knows if I want to watch four, and I'm not going to start a run again for that purpose. So I'll be as strategic as possible with this - and there's absolutely no reason why I should have to do this.

Anyone else have thoughts on this? :$
I skimmed the past challenges and opinions were mixed about this. Some wanted to be able to return to a director after the initial post with however many new entries (like you do), others felt the spirit of the challenge is to watch as many movies consecutively as possible.

I am fine either way and am willing to change the rule, but want to see how other people feel about this first.
blocho
Donator
Posts: 6152
Joined: July 20th, 2014, 6:00 am
Contact:

#28

Post by blocho »

shugs wrote: June 4th, 2022, 6:49 pm I am fine either way and am willing to change the rule, but want to see how other people feel about this first.
I favor the rule proposed by Minkin, but I'm unsure about changing rules midway through a challenge. Just because if we get into a big debate about challenge rules during a challenge, it feels like a distraction. Perhaps table the matter for next year (assuming this challenge gets voted for next year, which seems very likely)?
User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 14384
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#29

Post by sol »

If we having a rules debate, what are everyone's thoughts on incidental director watches?

I just saw my second film this month from the same Icelandic director. There is also a Norwegian director who have seen two films from already, and other Nordic examples like this will probably crop up later in the month.

Should I be including these directors in this challenge when I get to three viewings for them? Or should I not include them because I have been watching their films at different points throughout the month?

I don't really mind either way. I'm not going to come close to winning this challenge so whether I post my Nordic director collections or not will not make much difference to final result. It might provide some added diversity though, especially because I try to pen writeups for every director who I post about.
|iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | Gold Derby
Image
Long live the new flesh!
User avatar
shugs
Donator
Posts: 961
Joined: November 15th, 2014, 7:00 am
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#30

Post by shugs »

blocho wrote: June 5th, 2022, 3:15 am
shugs wrote: June 4th, 2022, 6:49 pm I am fine either way and am willing to change the rule, but want to see how other people feel about this first.
I favor the rule proposed by Minkin, but I'm unsure about changing rules midway through a challenge. Just because if we get into a big debate about challenge rules during a challenge, it feels like a distraction. Perhaps table the matter for next year (assuming this challenge gets voted for next year, which seems very likely)?
We're still early into the challenge, doubt this rule change would have that much of an impact. I'll change it in about 24 hours, so if someone is opposed to this, please speak your thoughts.
User avatar
shugs
Donator
Posts: 961
Joined: November 15th, 2014, 7:00 am
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#31

Post by shugs »

sol wrote: June 5th, 2022, 6:34 am Should I be including these directors in this challenge when I get to three viewings for them? Or should I not include them because I have been watching their films at different points throughout the month?
I'm fine with this. Incidental/accidental exploration is still exploration. :D
User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 32260
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#32

Post by mightysparks »

Sofia Coppola

Image

I hated Lost in Translation when I watched it a long time ago but don't remember it now and The Beguiled was the only other Coppola film I'd seen until this point. I'd put off watching more of her films because they didn't impress me and generally heard meh things about her work. I wouldn't say I'm a fan but I liked most of the ones I saw for this challenge more than the first two. She does have this distanced and flat vibe to her films which works sometimes but other times it just feels lazy and empty. They tend to lack atmosphere and plot and depth so there's not much to grab onto. That being said I didn't think any of these films were terrible they just never gave me enough.

ImageImageImageImage


Marie Antoinette was a lot more enjoyable than I expected for a period film, which is one of my least favourite sub-genres. The use of modern music helped it feel less stuffy and create the feeling of a lost young girl/woman could be in any time period. I don't know anything about Marie Antoinette though and I don't feel I learnt anything about the 'real' person or history and was left a little confused about who she was or why she was important.

The Bling Ring had the opposite effect; the real events it was based on was a great idea for a film but this film completely wastes it. The characters are utterly dull and the film is this repetitious cycle of name-dropping celebrities I don't know or care about and then picking up clothes and jewelry and talking about how good they are. It was interesting that it was more grounded than you'd expect from the plot but it doesn't use this to its advantage. Looking up the real events and people afterwards proved how great this film could've been had it followed the reality more closely. Instead it is very lifeless.

The Virgin Suicides was her most intriguing film and the one that seemed to have the most energy. It has an almost Picnic at Hanging Rock type of mysterious vibe to it. Everything was a little vague and I didn't really understand where the film was going or why most of it happened but I did enjoy the ride.

Somewhere felt like it was the most suited to her style. Although it still lacked depth, the detached and observant style removes the glam from the celeb life and brings out the emptiness of the lead character and his life. It was an ok slice of life thing and the characters felt fairly real but I still struggled to understand them and like most of her films didn't really know what I was meant to get out if it.


1. Marie Antoinette (2006) 6/10
2. The Bling Ring (2013) 5/10
3. The Virgin Suicides (1999) 6/10
4. Somewhere (2010) 6/10
Spoiler
1. Marie Antoinette (2006) 6/10 Sofia Coppola
2. The Bling Ring (2013) 5/10 Sofia Coppola
3. The Virgin Suicides (1999) 6/10 Sofia Coppola
4. Somewhere (2010) 6/10 Sofia Coppola
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | Letterboxd | Linktree | TSZDT

Image
vortexsurfer
Posts: 639
Joined: February 4th, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#33

Post by vortexsurfer »

Joe Dante

7. Innerspace (1987) - 8/10
8. Small Soliders (1998) - 8/10
9. Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003) - 7/10

Ivan Passer

10. Born to Win (1971) - 9/10
11. Silver Bears (1977) - 7/10
12. Creation (1985) - 6/10

Spoiler
1. Last Resort (Pawel Pawlikowski, 2000) - 8/10
2. The Woman in the Fifth (Pawel Pawlikowski, 2011) - 7/10
3. Ida (Pawel Pawlikowski, 2013) - 9/10

4. Sex, Lies, and Videotape (Steven Soderbergh, 1989) - 8/10
5. Kafka (Steven Soderbergh, 1991) - 6/10
6. King of the Hill (Steven Soderbergh, 1993) - 9/10

7. Innerspace (Joe Dante, 1987) - 8/10
8. Small Soliders (Joe Dante, 1998) - 8/10
9. Looney Tunes: Back in Action (Joe Dante, 2003) - 7/10

10. Born to Win (Ivan Passer, 1971) - 9/10
11. Silver Bears (Ivan Passer, 1977) - 7/10
12. Creation (Ivan Passer, 1985) - 6/10
User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 14492
Joined: December 29th, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#34

Post by Lonewolf2003 »

shugs wrote: June 5th, 2022, 7:12 am
sol wrote: June 5th, 2022, 6:34 am Should I be including these directors in this challenge when I get to three viewings for them? Or should I not include them because I have been watching their films at different points throughout the month?
I'm fine with this. Incidental/accidental exploration is still exploration. :D
Sorry, I’m opposed to this. Incidentally watching three movie by the same director in a month is not the same as doing a run on a director. The idea of a run is to watch as many movies by a director consecutive to deep dive into their oeuvre. In its most die hard interpretation it wouldn’t be allowed to watch anything else between. Now I do get that people also might watch movies not for this challenge, and letting those pass as an interruption in a run I can let pass. But to me watching as many movies as possible back to back is what defines a run and is the challenge of this challenge. It’s great for sol he gets to (incidentally) explore different works by the same Nordic directors, but that doesn’t make it a run.

The three movie return rule is also there to keep it (as much as possible) a consecutive streak of movies by the same director, in other words doing a run on them. Hitchcock-Scorsese-Hitchcock-Scorsese-Hitchcock-Scorsese-Hitchcock ( after watching the initial 3 rules on both) is not a run on either in my book.

Minkins idea of strategically posting runs, that aren’t real consecutive runs but made-up runs (f.e. three now and later in the month a fourth and posting that as 4 movie run), is simply cheating the rules (as they stand now). So somebody that strategically post made up runs at the end is both cheating the rules and not posting in the spirit of keeping this topic an active community event. (I get the host isn’t going to examine if people do this, but a bit fair play by the participants can be expected).

The idea behind “Future consecutive posts tied to the same director can be less than three entries as long as the director does not change.” is to keep this topic active, so people don’t have to wait posting there viewings after having started a run on somebody. It’s not there to stretch the definition a run.

(Or maybe I misunderstood what sol and Minkin meant)
User avatar
DudeLanez
Posts: 838
Joined: August 25th, 2020, 12:22 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

#35

Post by DudeLanez »

Jan Troell
4. Here Is Your Life (1966) 7,5/10
5. Who Saw Him Die? (1968) 7/10
6. As White as in Snow (2001) 7/10
Spoiler
Gustaf Molander
1. Intermezzo (1936) 5,5/10
2. A Woman's Face (1938) 6/10
3. Ordet (1943) 6/10
Jan Troell
4. Here Is Your Life (1966) 7,5/10
5. Who Saw Him Die? (1968) 7/10
6. As White as in Snow (2001) 7/10
Last edited by DudeLanez on June 6th, 2022, 12:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
:ICM: icm - :letbxd: letterboxd - :imdb: imdb

Challenges in July
Image -> 325/500
ororama
Posts: 2898
Joined: June 19th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#36

Post by ororama »

Lonewolf2003 wrote: June 5th, 2022, 5:21 pm
shugs wrote: June 5th, 2022, 7:12 am
sol wrote: June 5th, 2022, 6:34 am Should I be including these directors in this challenge when I get to three viewings for them? Or should I not include them because I have been watching their films at different points throughout the month?
I'm fine with this. Incidental/accidental exploration is still exploration. :D
Sorry, I’m opposed to this. Incidentally watching three movie by the same director in a month is not the same as doing a run on a director. The idea of a run is to watch as many movies by a director consecutive to deep dive into their oeuvre. In its most die hard interpretation it wouldn’t be allowed to watch anything else between. Now I do get that people also might watch movies not for this challenge, and letting those pass as an interruption in a run I can let pass. But to me watching as many movies as possible back to back is what defines a run and is the challenge of this challenge. It’s great for sol he gets to (incidentally) explore different works by the same Nordic directors, but that doesn’t make it a run.

The three movie return rule is also there to keep it (as much as possible) a consecutive streak of movies by the same director, in other words doing a run on them. Hitchcock-Scorsese-Hitchcock-Scorsese-Hitchcock-Scorsese-Hitchcock ( after watching the initial 3 rules on both) is not a run on either in my book.

Minkins idea of strategically posting runs, that aren’t real consecutive runs but made-up runs (f.e. three now and later in the month a fourth and posting that as 4 movie run), is simply cheating the rules (as they stand now). So somebody that strategically post made up runs at the end is both cheating the rules and not posting in the spirit of keeping this topic an active community event. (I get the host isn’t going to examine if people do this, but a bit fair play by the participants can be expected).

The idea behind “Future consecutive posts tied to the same director can be less than three entries as long as the director does not change.” is to keep this topic active, so people don’t have to wait posting there viewings after having started a run on somebody. It’s not there to stretch the definition a run.

(Or maybe I misunderstood what sol and Minkin meant)
I like the loosest interpretation. I expect to watch three movies directed by John Sturges this month and it won't be incidental, but it won't be consecutive. I watched three by him last month, which was partly incidental on my part- I watched two because I wanted to watch westerns starring Robert Taylor, and the other was a DVD from the same set. I am doing deep dive into his oeuvre, watching at least 6 movies over a two month period. On the other hand, If I watch three directed by Joseph Kane or someone else that is relatively obscure, it will probably be incidental-I'll be watching some westerns this month, not seeking out Kane's movies, but maybe seeking out Roy Rogers or another star that he worked with. I still might learn something about how Joseph Kane worked, though.

The strictest interpretation offered by Lonewolf2003, which was apparently the intention the first time this challenge was run, is the sort of thing that sets challenges up as a contest between the 3 to 5 people who will finish on top, and I think discourages casual participants who just like to enjoy some movies and aren't trying to win. The question is whether the challenge is about watching movies and gaining something from the experience, or about acquiring movies to watch and strategizing about how to watch them.

The first time that this challenge was run, I chose to sit it out, as I intended to this time. The looser interpretation might cause me to at least post my Sturges movies here. The host as enforcer that Lonewolf2003 suggests as an undesirable alternative is the sort of thing that would discourage people from participating in this challenge, and maybe in future unrelated challenges.

As I understand the overall rules for challenges, it is completely shugs call as host, and I don't think that a looser interpretation this early in the month should create a problem for anyone. 'i have always found the rules for this challenge to be ambiguous, anyway.

I'm enjoying reading the posts here anyway, especially flavo's post on Danny Pang/the Pang Brothers.
Last edited by ororama on June 5th, 2022, 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Silga
Posts: 342
Joined: June 16th, 2021, 10:06 pm
Location: Vilnius, Lithuania
Contact:

#37

Post by Silga »

I agree with Lonewolf. I like the specific rules of this challenge and plan my watchlist for this month with 3 consecutive films from each director.
User avatar
Silga
Posts: 342
Joined: June 16th, 2021, 10:06 pm
Location: Vilnius, Lithuania
Contact:

#38

Post by Silga »

Martin Scorsese TSPDT Top 250

4. Street Scenes (1970) 6/10
5. Italianamerican (1974) 8/10
6. The Aviator (2004) 9/10 rewatch

I couldn't get enough of Italianamerican. Really wish it was longer, maybe with more intermissions for cooking and joking around. It's still great and a nice tribute to the Italian Americans throughout the generations of immigrants.
The Aviator holds up beautifully. An expensive, lavish extravaganza. A sort of film that was very much a product of its time with the right actors filling the cast and at the exact point in Scorsese's career where he had both the experience and prestige credit to pull this one off successfully.
Spoiler
John Woo TSPDT Top 250
1. Face/Off (1997) 6/10 rewatch
2. Blackjack (1998) 2/10
3. Windtalkers (2002) 7/10

Martin Scorsese TSPDT Top 250
4. Street Scenes (1970) 6/10
5. Italianamerican (1974) 8/10
6. The Aviator (2004) 9/10 rewatch
User avatar
shugs
Donator
Posts: 961
Joined: November 15th, 2014, 7:00 am
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#39

Post by shugs »

Ok, after reading your posts I'm going to allow returning to a director with any number of points and removing all consecutive mentions.
The strict rules have the following problems, from what I see:
  1. they put off people from participating; I'd rather have more posts and participants in the challenge than people afraid of some arbitrary rule
  2. they run on the assumption that you need to watch movies in a row to properly explore a director, which I don't agree with - I can watch 2 Bergmans in a row, and the third after binging blockbusters at the cinema and still get an idea
  3. they are impossible to verify anyway
As for incidental watches, they are fine by me, but I can understand why someone wouldn't want to post them here. I'll leave this to the participants.
User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 13891
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#40

Post by St. Gloede »

Regarding the above rule discussion: I don't mind too much either way, but generally lean towards making the challenge as easy to join and participate in as possible.

As such, I have nothing against someone doing, for instance, 2 runs at the same time. That is still purposeful exploration, and I don't think it goes against the spirit of the challenge. Incidental watches sound a little iffier, but I'm not entirely against it as long as it is coupled by an intriguing write-up.

What I don't want to see on the other hand, and which feels against the spirit of the challenge, is individual viewings popping up because someone watched 3 films by the director earlier this month. What separates this challenge from other challenges IMO is the fact that essentially everyone does write-ups and couple the films together in a specific context. If we went with open runs the challenge would suddenly lose its identity and beyond the first post about X director be like every other challenge.
Post Reply