Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 11 released July 24th)
Polls: 0 Official Lists (Results), 1960 (Aug 9th), Romance (Aug 28th)
Challenges: German/Austrian/Swiss, <400, 1970s
Film of the Week: Der Fan, September nominations (Aug 28th)
World Cup S4: Match 2H: India vs Cuba (Aug 16th), QF Preparation (Aug 25th)

Run The Director Challenge (Official, July 2020)

Post Reply
User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 3321
Joined: Jul 10, 2014
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

Re: Run The Director Challenge (Official, July 2020)

#41

Post by flavo5000 » July 1st, 2020, 1:49 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 1:18 pm
Obgeoff wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 1:01 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 12:04 pm


You don't need to see them in a row, you just need to see 3 to declare them. You can watch them over a week interchanged with other films and then add them when you get up to 3 films for one of them.
I don't think that is the case. The opening post suggests that it is much stricter than that with three in a row strongly encouraged.
This is the only rule related to it above:
- 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. Future consecutive posts tied to the same director can be less than three entries as long as the director does not change. If you change directors and return to a previous director, then the 3-entry initial post rule would apply again.
Essentially you declare a director you wish to pursue and you need to open a "bid", i.e. list them here, start with a selection of 3 films to have them counted towards the challenge. After this you can add films from this director any way you like.

Though Flavo can clarify this in case I misunderstood.
There's no guideline on how you post beyond the opening three other than you can't switch to another director then back again without restarting with another three. The example in the OP shows what I mean.

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 4742
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#42

Post by OldAle1 » July 1st, 2020, 1:51 pm

Ah OK now I think I see. So if there are just 4 or 5 films, the think to do would be to watch them all in a row; similarly if there are 7 or 8, you'd do it in two groups of 3-4, etc, etc. Correct? That's easy enough to handle I think.

User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 3321
Joined: Jul 10, 2014
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

#43

Post by flavo5000 » July 1st, 2020, 1:52 pm

OldAle1 wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 1:24 pm
Yeah I guess I need clarification on this as well, e.g. I am going to watch 5 films from a director who only has 5 films - I will probably watch them all in a row (today) so do I get credited for all 5, or only for 3?
You get credit for every entry. The only time you wouldn't get full credit is for TV series where for a single series you can't accrue more than 1 point for a single director.
And if I watched the three today, watch three from someone else tomorrow, then get back to watch the final two, how does that work?

Sorry, I feel this has been explained but my tiny brain isn't getting it. Also not enough stimulation yet today probably.
That would violate the rule. If you switch directors, the 3 minimum post goes back into effect. Of course, you could always just withhold your post of the other director until you're done with all five and I wouldn't know but.... :ph43r:

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 9266
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#44

Post by Lonewolf2003 » July 1st, 2020, 1:54 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 1:18 pm
Obgeoff wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 1:01 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 12:04 pm


You don't need to see them in a row, you just need to see 3 to declare them. You can watch them over a week interchanged with other films and then add them when you get up to 3 films for one of them.
I don't think that is the case. The opening post suggests that it is much stricter than that with three in a row strongly encouraged.
This is the only rule related to it above:
- 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. Future consecutive posts tied to the same director can be less than three entries as long as the director does not change. If you change directors and return to a previous director, then the 3-entry initial post rule would apply again.
Essentially you declare a director you wish to pursue and you need to open a "bid", i.e. list them here, start with a selection of 3 films to have them counted towards the challenge. After this you can add films from this director any way you like.

Though Flavo can clarify this in case I misunderstood.
No, you can't add directors anyway you like after that. You need 3 films first to open a director, after that you can add as much as you want at the same time, as long as you stick with the same director. If you change directors or comeback to one you need to watch at least 3 again. The spirit of the challenge is to immerse oneself in a directors oeuvre by watching films from them consecutively.


From the OP:
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. Future consecutive posts tied to the same director can be less than three entries as long as the director does not change. If you change directors and return to a previous director, then the 3-entry initial post rule would apply again
Like flavo said above, he of course isn't spying on everyone to check if people log films here in the order they have really seen them, so you are able to cheat.

If zzzorf (or others) can switch to movies from other directors intermediate, which he doesn't declare here is a good question. I would say it's not in the real spirit of the challenges. But I don't want to keep him from enjoying the challenge either and don't care enough about other people scores to keep him from doing so.
Last edited by Lonewolf2003 on July 1st, 2020, 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10974
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#45

Post by St. Gloede » July 1st, 2020, 2:02 pm

Lonewolf2003 wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 1:54 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 1:18 pm
Obgeoff wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 1:01 pm


I don't think that is the case. The opening post suggests that it is much stricter than that with three in a row strongly encouraged.
This is the only rule related to it above:
- 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. Future consecutive posts tied to the same director can be less than three entries as long as the director does not change. If you change directors and return to a previous director, then the 3-entry initial post rule would apply again.
Essentially you declare a director you wish to pursue and you need to open a "bid", i.e. list them here, start with a selection of 3 films to have them counted towards the challenge. After this you can add films from this director any way you like.

Though Flavo can clarify this in case I misunderstood.
No, you can't add directors anyway you like after that. You need 3 films first to open a director, after that you can add as much as you want at the same time, as long as you stick with the same director. If you change directors or comeback to one you need to watch at least 3 again. The spirit of the challenge is to immerse oneself in a directors oeuvre by watching films from them consecutively.

From the OP:
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. Future consecutive posts tied to the same director can be less than three entries as long as the director does not change. If you change directors and return to a previous director, then the 3-entry initial post rule would apply again
I'm sorry, but I'm very confused. This is exactly what I wrote above.
Like flavo said above, he of course isn't spying on everyone to check if people log films here in the order they have really seen them, so you are able to cheat.

If Obgeoff (or others) can switch to movies from other directors intermediate, which he doesn't declare here is a good question. I would say it's not in the real spirit of the challenges. But I don't want to keep him from enjoying the challenge either and don't care enough about other people scores to keep him from doing so.
I don't understand this, could you clarify?

Is the implication that you should see the films back to back with no other films between them?

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10974
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#46

Post by St. Gloede » July 1st, 2020, 2:05 pm

flavo5000 wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 1:49 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 1:18 pm
Obgeoff wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 1:01 pm


I don't think that is the case. The opening post suggests that it is much stricter than that with three in a row strongly encouraged.
This is the only rule related to it above:
- 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. Future consecutive posts tied to the same director can be less than three entries as long as the director does not change. If you change directors and return to a previous director, then the 3-entry initial post rule would apply again.
Essentially you declare a director you wish to pursue and you need to open a "bid", i.e. list them here, start with a selection of 3 films to have them counted towards the challenge. After this you can add films from this director any way you like.

Though Flavo can clarify this in case I misunderstood.
There's no guideline on how you post beyond the opening three other than you can't switch to another director then back again without restarting with another three. The example in the OP shows what I mean.
Phew, that's what I thought. Thanks.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10974
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#47

Post by St. Gloede » July 1st, 2020, 2:08 pm

flavo5000 wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 1:52 pm
OldAle1 wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 1:24 pm
Yeah I guess I need clarification on this as well, e.g. I am going to watch 5 films from a director who only has 5 films - I will probably watch them all in a row (today) so do I get credited for all 5, or only for 3?
You get credit for every entry. The only time you wouldn't get full credit is for TV series where for a single series you can't accrue more than 1 point for a single director.
And if I watched the three today, watch three from someone else tomorrow, then get back to watch the final two, how does that work?

Sorry, I feel this has been explained but my tiny brain isn't getting it. Also not enough stimulation yet today probably.
That would violate the rule. If you switch directors, the 3 minimum post goes back into effect. Of course, you could always just withhold your post of the other director until you're done with all five and I wouldn't know but.... :ph43r:
Wait, now it is unclear again ...

So the rule is that you need to select 1 director, and then watch 3 films from them (but with any other non-challenge films in between), but if you want to declare another director you leave the previous director unless you add 3 new films by them?

I thought this challenge was simply to explore directors, and as many directors as you wanted, with 3+ from each. This structure is a lot less fun if I'm honest, though I'll still try to participate.

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 9136
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#48

Post by sol » July 1st, 2020, 2:20 pm

1. Bedroom Eyes (1984) William Fruet
2. Wedding in White (1972) William Fruet
3. Search and Destroy (1979) William Fruet

Image Image Image

Some well-made early career films from horror luminary William Fruet (Death Weekend; Killer Party; Trapped). The best of these was easily Wedding in White for my money, a frank and honest look at victim-blaming with regards to rape, topped off with a conclusion perhaps more haunting than anything in Fruet's horror output. Of the other two, I preferred the voyeurism-focused Bedroom Eyes, which plays against erotic thriller expectations (it's all about his reactions to what he is seeing, and his guilt, which leads to him getting a comeuppance as a murder suspect). Interestingly, I think the protagonist in Search and Destroy is wrongly suspected of murder too, but this was my least favourite of this trio. Didn't quite get why the police suspected him. Some nifty silent foot chase/cat-and-mouse scenes though.

And no, I am not planning to only watch Canadian directors for this Challenge. :unsure: This just seemed like an appropriate way to begin the month. Directors I am hoping to give focus to in July: Donner, Rodriguez, William Lustig, Tony Scott, Walter Hill... I have some pretty big viewing gaps for them.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 3321
Joined: Jul 10, 2014
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

#49

Post by flavo5000 » July 1st, 2020, 2:31 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 2:08 pm
flavo5000 wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 1:52 pm
OldAle1 wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 1:24 pm
Yeah I guess I need clarification on this as well, e.g. I am going to watch 5 films from a director who only has 5 films - I will probably watch them all in a row (today) so do I get credited for all 5, or only for 3?
You get credit for every entry. The only time you wouldn't get full credit is for TV series where for a single series you can't accrue more than 1 point for a single director.
And if I watched the three today, watch three from someone else tomorrow, then get back to watch the final two, how does that work?

Sorry, I feel this has been explained but my tiny brain isn't getting it. Also not enough stimulation yet today probably.
That would violate the rule. If you switch directors, the 3 minimum post goes back into effect. Of course, you could always just withhold your post of the other director until you're done with all five and I wouldn't know but.... :ph43r:
Wait, now it is unclear again ...

So the rule is that you need to select 1 director, and then watch 3 films from them (but with any other non-challenge films in between), but if you want to declare another director you leave the previous director unless you add 3 new films by them?

I thought this challenge was simply to explore directors, and as many directors as you wanted, with 3+ from each. This structure is a lot less fun if I'm honest, though I'll still try to participate.
The intent is to prevent people from just coming in at the end and randomly throwing films together that they happened to have watched from the same director over the course of the month. Although I think the minimum 3 for the first post helps with that anyway.

I mean, I'm willing to change the rule if most agree to it since no one has actually posted any watches yet (with that minimum 3 rule, I figured the first day would be more quiet).

Obgeoff
Posts: 425
Joined: May 29, 2019
Contact:

#50

Post by Obgeoff » July 1st, 2020, 2:34 pm

Lonewolf2003 wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 1:54 pm

If Obgeoff (or others) can switch to movies from other directors intermediate, which he doesn't declare here is a good question. I would say it's not in the real spirit of the challenges. But I don't want to keep him from enjoying the challenge either and don't care enough about other people scores to keep him from doing so.
Not sure why I'm being singled out here. I'll abide by the spirit of the challenge and haven't asked for any clarifications or suggested that I will switch directors.
Image

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 9266
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#51

Post by Lonewolf2003 » July 1st, 2020, 2:37 pm

Obgeoff wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 2:34 pm
Lonewolf2003 wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 1:54 pm

If Obgeoff (or others) can switch to movies from other directors intermediate, which he doesn't declare here is a good question. I would say it's not in the real spirit of the challenges. But I don't want to keep him from enjoying the challenge either and don't care enough about other people scores to keep him from doing so.
Not sure why I'm being singled out here. I'll abide by the spirit of the challenge and haven't asked for any clarifications or suggested that I will switch directors.
Sorry I got you mixed up with zzzorf. I corrected my mistake.


User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10974
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#53

Post by St. Gloede » July 1st, 2020, 3:34 pm

flavo5000 wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 2:31 pm
The intent is to prevent people from just coming in at the end and randomly throwing films together that they happened to have watched from the same director over the course of the month. Although I think the minimum 3 for the first post helps with that anyway.

I mean, I'm willing to change the rule if most agree to it since no one has actually posted any watches yet (with that minimum 3 rule, I figured the first day would be more quiet).
Hmmm, for me it would make it simpler/more fun, but I don't want to complicate anything for anybody else.

allisoncm
Posts: 16640
Joined: May 11, 2011
Contact:

#54

Post by allisoncm » July 1st, 2020, 5:30 pm

flavo5000 wrote:
June 29th, 2020, 11:11 pm
allisoncm wrote:
June 29th, 2020, 8:36 pm
I wonder if it's asking to much to have a tally of the most popular directors people will have watched for this challenge.
I was planning to keep track of that actually.
Cool :cheers:

Obgeoff
Posts: 425
Joined: May 29, 2019
Contact:

#55

Post by Obgeoff » July 1st, 2020, 9:27 pm

4. Vanya on 42nd Street (1994, Malle) 8

Director #2: Fritz Lang
5. Fury (1936, Lang) 9
6. Man hunt (1941, Lang) 7
7. Die Nibelungen: Kriemhilds Rache (1924, Lang) 7
SpoilerShow
Director #1: Louis Malle
1. Atlantic City, USA (1980, Malle) 8
2. Black Moon (1975, Malle) 7
3. My Dinner with Andre (1981, Malle) 9
4. Vanya on 42nd Street (1994, Malle) 8

Director #2: Fritz Lang
5. Fury (1936, Lang) 9
6. Man Hunt (1941, Lang) 7
7. Die Nibelungen: Kriemhilds Rache (1924, Lang) 7
Image

psychotronicbeatnik
Donator
Posts: 1781
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Oregon
Contact:

#56

Post by psychotronicbeatnik » July 1st, 2020, 9:42 pm

peeptoad wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 12:41 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
June 30th, 2020, 7:24 pm
peeptoad wrote:
June 30th, 2020, 2:34 pm

Let's see for Rohmer I was going to go for at least 3 of: Suzanne's Career, La collectionneuse, My Night at Maud's, Claire's Knee, Love in the Afternoon, since I have a copy of his "6 Moral Tales" on dvd. :)
Thanks for the podcast info. I did see that thread last week, but I haven't had a chance to listen to the 'cast yet...
I would say that if you want to seek out films from one of his cycles you would likely get more out of it by watching all of them. I don't have Moral Tales as fresh in my mind as Comedies and Proverbs, but in the latter each film (despite unrelated) worked with the others, either building on/expanding a idea or contradicting it, and while each film is set up as a dialectic, the cycle is as well. Rohmer wrote out the Moral Tales as a novel before he made them, and it was carefully planned, so I would not be surprised if this was the case there as well.

(There is of course also the shorter cycle, 4 seasons)

One alternative could be The Sign of Leo, The Moral Tales (6) and then see some of his standalone work like Perceval, Four Adventures of Reinette and Mirabelle and Les rendez-vous de Paris. Personally I think Comedies and Proverbs as a whole is his crowning achievement, but it is good to get on his wavelength before engaging with it - especially as it could be seen as a response to Moral Tales as well.

(Rohmer also technically made the 50m feature debut La sonate à Kreutzer in 1956, with many familiar Cahier faces as actors - but that is very different from anything he did later, and closer to say Astruc's pre-wave film - i.e. inside and narration driven).
Excellent, thank you for the additional information on Rohmer's filmography. This is very intriguing stuff... since I already have access to the one set/cycle (Moral Tales) I am going to start there (there was actually a reason I chose some of these films to start with, other than the dvd set being very inexpensive), but I will be sure to watch them all, in sequence, in order to get the most out of them and retain the cohesion of the film cycle. For "run the director" this should fit well into my plan for the entire month (unless my free time dwindles again).
I hope you end up liking Rohmer, peeps. He's one of a small group of directors who have a nearly perfect run with me and I continue to revisit his films from time to time and find them just as moving and wonderful as always. I've got other plans for what i'm watching this month but I might revisit a lot of rohmer the next time the French challenge rolls around. I think starting with Moral Tales will work just fine. :cheers:

psychotronicbeatnik
Donator
Posts: 1781
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Oregon
Contact:

#57

Post by psychotronicbeatnik » July 1st, 2020, 9:51 pm

1. Missle to the Moon (1958 / Richard E. Cunha) 7-/10 {78 m.} imdb: 3.9
2. She Demons (1958 / Richard E. Cunha) 7+/10 {77 m.} imdb: 4.6
3. Giant From the Unknown (1958 / Richard E. Cunha) 7/10 {77 m.} imdb: 4.7
4. Frankenstein’s Daughter (1958 / Richard E. Cunha) FTV 7+/10 {85 m.} imdb: 4.2

ororama
Posts: 1973
Joined: Jun 19, 2011
Contact:

#58

Post by ororama » July 2nd, 2020, 2:10 am

flavo5000 wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 2:31 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 2:08 pm
flavo5000 wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 1:52 pm

You get credit for every entry. The only time you wouldn't get full credit is for TV series where for a single series you can't accrue more than 1 point for a single director.


That would violate the rule. If you switch directors, the 3 minimum post goes back into effect. Of course, you could always just withhold your post of the other director until you're done with all five and I wouldn't know but.... :ph43r:
Wait, now it is unclear again ...

So the rule is that you need to select 1 director, and then watch 3 films from them (but with any other non-challenge films in between), but if you want to declare another director you leave the previous director unless you add 3 new films by them?

I thought this challenge was simply to explore directors, and as many directors as you wanted, with 3+ from each. This structure is a lot less fun if I'm honest, though I'll still try to participate.
The intent is to prevent people from just coming in at the end and randomly throwing films together that they happened to have watched from the same director over the course of the month. Although I think the minimum 3 for the first post helps with that anyway.

I mean, I'm willing to change the rule if most agree to it since no one has actually posted any watches yet (with that minimum 3 rule, I figured the first day would be more quiet).
Is this an issue? If someone posts more than a few directors with a few films each at the end of the month, it seems likely that the identity of the director was a factor in selection of the movies anyway. I assume that as usual there will be several participants with totals over 100.

I think that St. Gloede's observation about exploring directors fits the description of the auteur theory in the first post perfectly. This wasn't a challenge that I was thinking of participating in, but when I read the description of the challenge, the auteur theory centered aspect appealed to me (when I first became intensely interested in movies, I was reading Andrew Sarris in the Village Voice). When I watched 4 movies directed by Sam Fuller over the course of a few weeks about a month ago, I was seeking the experience that St. Gloede and the first post describe. As it happened, that occurred over the course of 2 months, as part of several different challenges that I was participating in during those months.

I will never "win" a challenge, and I don't care. I use challenges to direct, plan and focus my movie watching. I don't see any point in participating in a challenge that will lead me to watch less movies in order to get a better score (although my wife might think that would be a good thing).

The rules are too complex in any event. They seemed fairly clear when I read them, but there seem to be at least 3 interpretations so far, and after reading it all, I found an ambiguity that I didn't realize was there before. Suppose that I watch the first 2 movies in Kobayashi's Human Condition trilogy on Thursday and Friday nights, then decide to watch something by any other director on TCM on Saturday morning. When I watch the third movie Saturday night, I don't have 3 in a row by Kobayashi. Right? Wrong? If I understand your comments correctly, I should cheat by pretending that I didn't watch the movie in between. What if I watch an episode of The Red Green Show? Chances are it won't be one directed by Kobayasi.
Last edited by ororama on July 2nd, 2020, 2:27 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 3321
Joined: Jul 10, 2014
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

#59

Post by flavo5000 » July 2nd, 2020, 2:13 am

First director up to bat:
Alfred Hitchcock
Image
ImageImageImageImage
1. Juno and the Paycock (Hitchcock, 1930)
2. Elstree Calling (Hitchcock & others, 1930)
3. The Farmer's Wife (Hitchcock, 1928)
4. Champagne (Hitchcock, 1928)
For this run, I thought it only proper to kick off the challenge with the master of suspense himself, Alfred Hitchcock. It seemed only appropriate since he was one of the first directors to really have the auteur theory tag applied to his work. With a keen eye for voyeuristic suspense peppered with a dash of morbid humor, you'd have to be living in a cave with no access to a television to not be aware of who this fellow is. I decided since I've already watched much of his best work that I'd dip into some of his early atypical comedies. It's immediately apparent very quickly in Juno & the Paycock that anyone looking for typical Hitchcock thrills will be sorely disappointed. Instead you get a very statically filmed dramedy stage play that while well acted is certainly not as memorable as many of his other films. Elstree Calling is even worse, a cavalcade of lame gags in the style of vaudeville routines of yesteryear (with Hitch being one of four directors churning out this pap as well). The Farmer's Wife is probably the best structurally of the four with some interesting character dynamics and Champagne probably is the most actively entertaining as a more straight-forward plot-driven comedy. But at the end of the day, none of these really impressed me in the way that much of the rest of his filmography does (and that includes his much later comedy Mr. & Mrs. Smith).
The Master at WorkShow
1. Juno and the Paycock (Hitchcock, 1930)
2. Elstree Calling (Hitchcock, 1930)
3. The Farmer's Wife (Hitchcock, 1928)
4. Champagne (Hitchcock, 1928)

User avatar
zuma
Donator
Posts: 2110
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Contact:

#60

Post by zuma » July 2nd, 2020, 2:28 am

ororama wrote:
July 2nd, 2020, 2:10 am
flavo5000 wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 2:31 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 2:08 pm


Wait, now it is unclear again ...

So the rule is that you need to select 1 director, and then watch 3 films from them (but with any other non-challenge films in between), but if you want to declare another director you leave the previous director unless you add 3 new films by them?

I thought this challenge was simply to explore directors, and as many directors as you wanted, with 3+ from each. This structure is a lot less fun if I'm honest, though I'll still try to participate.
The intent is to prevent people from just coming in at the end and randomly throwing films together that they happened to have watched from the same director over the course of the month. Although I think the minimum 3 for the first post helps with that anyway.

I mean, I'm willing to change the rule if most agree to it since no one has actually posted any watches yet (with that minimum 3 rule, I figured the first day would be more quiet).
Is this an issue? If someone posts more than a few directors with a few films each at the end of the month, it seems likely that the identity of the director was a factor in selection of the movies anyway. I assume that as usual there will be several participants with totals over 100.

I think that St. Gloede's observation about exploring directors fits the description of the auteur theory in the first post perfectly. This wasn't a challenge that I was thinking of participating in, but when I read the description of the challenge, the auteur theory centered aspect appealed to me (when I first became intensely interested in movies, I was reading Andrew Sarris in the Village Voice). When I watched 4 movies directed by Sam Fuller over the course of a few weeks about a month ago, I was seeking the experience that St. Gloede and the first post describe. As it happened, that occurred over the course of 2 months, as part of several different challenges that I was participating in during those months.

I will never "win" a challenge, and I don't care. I use challenges to direct, plan and focus my movie watching. I don't see any point in participating in a challenge that will lead me to watch less movies in order to get a better score (although my wife might think that would be a good thing).

The rules are too complex in any event. They seemed fairly clear when I read them, but there seem to be at least 3 interpretations so far, and after reading it all, I found an ambiguity that I didn't realize was there before. Suppose that I watch the first 2 movies in Kobayashi's Human Condition trilogy on Thursday and Friday nights, then decide to watch something by any other director on TCM on Saturday morning. When I watch the third movie Saturday night, I don't have 3 in a row by Kobayashi. Right? Wrong? If I understand your comments correctly, I should cheat by pretending that I didn't watch the movie in between.
Wow I thought the rules were very clear. Watch at least three movies in a row before moving on to another director.

If it is just watch whatever for a month and see how many of those films were by the same director....that would not be much of a challenge. Just a regular month.

User avatar
frbrown
Posts: 6231
Joined: Nov 01, 2011
Contact:

#61

Post by frbrown » July 2nd, 2020, 5:00 am

WILLIAM CASTLE

1. Johnny Stool Pigeon (1949)
2. Undertow (1949)
3. Hollywood Story (1951)


I happened to watch these in the order of increasing quality - Johnny Stool Pigeon is not that good, but the other two are excellent, especially Hollywood Story, a sort of a much lighter Sunset Blvd. I already liked William Castle, and this makes me like him even more.

allisoncm
Posts: 16640
Joined: May 11, 2011
Contact:

#62

Post by allisoncm » July 2nd, 2020, 5:55 am

First up.... Michael Dowse

1. Goon (2011, Michael Dowse)
2. The F Word / What If (2013, Michael Dowse)
3. Fubar (2002, Michael Dowse)

I was just going to watch Goon, but then I realized he had a couple more. Basically 1 & 2 were pretty atrocious. Fubar was dumb but had a lot of heart at least. It made it seem that his later films were bogged down by pressure to make something mainstream. Also seeing Zoe Kazan and Daniel Radcliffe in a romantic coupling (in The F Word) was one of the worst pairings I've ever seen.

User avatar
Mochard
Posts: 2302
Joined: May 13, 2011
Location: California
Contact:

#63

Post by Mochard » July 2nd, 2020, 5:59 am

Sergio Leone

Image



1. Il colosso di Rodi (1961) - 5/10 - Official Lists - 0 - Checks - 192 - Runtime - 129 mins

While on holiday in Rhodes, Athenian war hero Darios becomes involved in two different plots to overthrow the tyrannical king, one from Rhodian patriots and the other from sinister Phoenician agents.

Image

2. Giù la testa (1971) - 6/10 - Official Lists - 4 - Checks - 2917 - Runtime - 138 mins

A low-life bandit and an I.R.A. explosives expert rebel against the government and become heroes of the Mexican Revolution.

Image

3. The King of Ads (1991) - 3/10 - Official Lists - 0 - Checks - 16 - Runtime - 87 mins

A collection of European T.V. commercials directed by a variety of well-known directors from across Europe and the U.S. Compiled and produced by Jean-Marie Boursicot.

Image

Filmography Seen: Completed

Sergio Leone enters my Top Directors List in 8th position

And Action... (3)Show
1. Il colosso di Rodi (1961) - 5/10 - Directed by Sergio Leone
2. Giù la testa (1971) - 6/10 - Directed by Sergio Leone
3. The King of Ads (1991) - 3/10 - Directed by various directors including Sergio Leone

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10974
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#64

Post by St. Gloede » July 2nd, 2020, 9:01 am

Christian Petzold:

1. Pilotinnen (1995) 6.5-7/10
2. Cubra Libre (1996) 7-7.5/10
3. Die Beischlafdiebin (1998) 6.5/10

These were the first 3 (TV) films Petzold did before he broke through the fold with The State I Am In (2000), and what is surprising is that it shows, from the very beginning, how finely tuned his cinematic craft is.

Pilotinnen and Cubra Libre in particular start up with brilliant visual ideas.

The former, low-key focusing on a table with a map as two romantic characters outline what cities and hotels they will be inh to see when they will meet. This instantly sets up our lead as a travelling sales woman, and give us quite a bit of insight into her reality, while also being cinematically clever and daring (no faces, we see hands, table, cigarettes, etc.).

The latter starts with a similarly obfuscated leading woman, seen only hunch over from behind and adding a request for music. The sound play as we cut between varying set-up and the way he minimalises emotion is almost reminiscent of Bresson.

His films also tried to be clever in references and metaphors. Pilotinnen features women who work for "Blue Eyes" a pharmaceutical company, and is set at the time of Frank Sinatra's death (lovely scene set-up where characters assume Sinatra is dead because he is on TV). Cuba Libre is more direct with our lead longing for freedom in Cuba, and with some simple irony towards the end.

These are the tools that Petzold handle fairly well, though the latter can get a little hamfisted.

Where all 3 films struggle is plotting and dialog, and this is what has typically been the drawback, including for his great The State I Am In - Petzold just doesn't have that much "depth". His films rely on cinematic prowess and slow-brooding tension and in these early efforts he does not always get this quite right either. Cubra Libre is the most spectacular of these early efforts, and all are engaging and good. He relies often on crime and violence so he can do interesting things with tension and atmosphere, and tension and atmosphere is where he shines.

Die Beischlafdiebin is a slightly weaker film, or at least has a slightly weaker start - we still get a slow set-up where the character reveals who she is - but the opening scene is abrupt, and it does not have as many strong cinematic moments as the previous two. It also feels like a slight re-run of Pilotinnen, but with a different set-up. Scenes like our leads simply sitting on a car in Pilotinnen are missing.

I think Petzold is a great minimalist, but he needs better material, and in these early films he also needed a little more experience to make a film visually and creatively engaging to the point of greatness throughout. At this point it feels like he is mimicking great theoretical ideas (likely from class), and seems really excited to make a film: while also making a film "just to make a film". Still, 3 cinematically challenging TV films is no small feat - all 3 have a great amount of minimalised dark humour, great scenes and wonderful atmosphere - they just needed a little more work.

I also loved that the 3 films had clear similarities that could set Petzold up for auteur theory from the beginning, including plot-wise:
SpoilerShow
All 3 films are two characters lead into crime, them against the world, and one dying at the end (in the first it is only implied). The last two films have the final shot be the leads holding each other, one dead.
It is worth noting for all that do not know that the great Harun Farocki was his teacher, mentor and collaborator. He supported the scrips for both Pilotinnen and Cuba Libre - and would continue to work with Petzold and co-write many his scripts until his death in 2014.

In terms of the early Berlin School and the techniques, Petzold uses this makes complete sense. Note: Farocki was also the teacher of the other early Berlin School filmmakers, who all studied at Berlin Film and Television Academy. Still not seen any films by Angela Schanelec or Christoph Hochhäusler. I may dedicate time for them later this challenge.

User avatar
peeptoad
Posts: 2133
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Contact:

#65

Post by peeptoad » July 2nd, 2020, 9:33 am

Abel Ferrara
1. Fear City (1984) 6
2. Cat Chaser (1989) 5
3. King of New York (1990) 7

User avatar
peeptoad
Posts: 2133
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Contact:

#66

Post by peeptoad » July 2nd, 2020, 9:37 am

psychotronicbeatnik wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 9:42 pm
peeptoad wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 12:41 pm

Excellent, thank you for the additional information on Rohmer's filmography. This is very intriguing stuff... since I already have access to the one set/cycle (Moral Tales) I am going to start there (there was actually a reason I chose some of these films to start with, other than the dvd set being very inexpensive), but I will be sure to watch them all, in sequence, in order to get the most out of them and retain the cohesion of the film cycle. For "run the director" this should fit well into my plan for the entire month (unless my free time dwindles again).
I hope you end up liking Rohmer, peeps. He's one of a small group of directors who have a nearly perfect run with me and I continue to revisit his films from time to time and find them just as moving and wonderful as always. I've got other plans for what i'm watching this month but I might revisit a lot of rohmer the next time the French challenge rolls around. I think starting with Moral Tales will work just fine. :cheers:
Thanks, 'beatnik! I am developing high hopes for Rohmer... I also hope you're hanging in there okay these days... haven't seen you around much lately. :cheers:

Obgeoff
Posts: 425
Joined: May 29, 2019
Contact:

#67

Post by Obgeoff » July 2nd, 2020, 11:44 am

Director #3: Michael Curtiz (3)
8. Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942, Curtiz) 8
9. The Breaking Point (1950, Curtiz) 7
10. Captain Blood (1935, Curtiz) 7
SpoilerShow
Director #1: Louis Malle (4)
1. Atlantic City, USA (1980, Malle) 8
2. Black Moon (1975, Malle) 7
3. My Dinner with Andre (1981, Malle) 9
4. Vanya on 42nd Street (1994, Malle) 8

Director #2: Fritz Lang (3)
5. Fury (1936, Lang) 9
6. Man Hunt (1941, Lang) 7
7. Die Nibelungen: Kriemhilds Rache (1924, Lang) 7

Director #3: Michael Curtiz (3)
8. Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942, Curtiz) 8
9. The Breaking Point (1950, Curtiz) 7
10. Captain Blood (1935, Curtiz) 7
Image

User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 3321
Joined: Jul 10, 2014
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

#68

Post by flavo5000 » July 2nd, 2020, 1:55 pm

Up next...Umberto Lenzi
Image
Image Image Image Image Image Image

5. Sette orchidee macchiate di rosso a.k.a. Seven Blood-Stained Orchids (Lenzi, 1972)
6. Milano odia: la polizia non può sparare a.k.a. Almost Human (Lenzi, 1974)
7. Un posto ideale per uccidere a.k.a. An Ideal Place to Kill (Lenzi, 1971)
8. Un ponte per l'inferno a.k.a. Bridge to Hell (Lenzi, 1986)
9. La guerra del ferro a.k.a. Ironmaster (Lenzi, 1983)
10. La casa 3 a.k.a. Ghosthouse (Lenzi, 1983)
This notorious Italian genre filmmaker is possibly most well-known for his predilection for cannibal films, directing Man from Deep River a.k.a. Sacrifice in 1972 and kicking off the whole Italian cannibal movie trend as well as eventually following it up with two other notable films in the sub-genre Eaten Alive and Cannibal Ferox. but Lenzi isn't all jungle people eating and animal abuse. He has dabbled in many different genres over the years, and I've attempted to watch a sampling of them.
In the '70s, Lenzi focused heavily on gialli, distinctly Italian crime thrillers fashioned after seedy dime-store novels that acted as a precursor to the slasher boom of the '80s, and both Seven Blood-Stained Orchids and An Ideal Place to Kill are pretty standard examples of the genre. Neither are what I'd consider top tier in the genre with Orchids in particular being oddly restrained and exposition-heavy despite it's fairly predictable plot. At least An Ideal Place to Kill has some energy to it. In addition to gialli, Lenzi also did quite a few poliziotteschi, action-based crime dramas influenced by film noir but with a grittier and more raw approach. Among them is Almost Human, almost certainly the best Lenzi film I've seen. The sweat and grit is palpable in this one and it starts with a bang, veering full-tilt into an exciting car chase and not letting up. The rough, jarring style Lenzi exhibits in his cannibal and horror films is used to very good effect in this one. Unfortunately it was all down here from here with Ironmaster being a pretty terrible cave man thriller with awesome poster art, Bridge to Hell as a sloppy, listless war film and Ghosthouse as a goofy, very not-scary-but-entertaining-in-a-bad-way horror film about an evil clown doll who compels a girl to do its bidding.
The Master at WorkShow
Run #1: Early Hitchcock Comedies
1. Juno and the Paycock (Hitchcock, 1930)
2. Elstree Calling (Hitchcock, 1930)
3. The Farmer's Wife (Hitchcock, 1928)
4. Champagne (Hitchcock, 1928)

Run #2: Umberto Lenzi's Sample Platter
5. Sette orchidee macchiate di rosso a.k.a. Seven Blood-Stained Orchids (Lenzi, 1972)
6. Milano odia: la polizia non può sparare a.k.a. Almost Human (Lenzi, 1974)
7. Un posto ideale per uccidere a.k.a. An Ideal Place to Kill (Lenzi, 1971)
8. Un ponte per l'inferno a.k.a. Bridge to Hell (Lenzi, 1986)
9. La guerra del ferro a.k.a. Ironmaster (Lenzi, 1983)
10. La casa 3 a.k.a. Ghosthouse (Lenzi, 1983)

User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 3321
Joined: Jul 10, 2014
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

#69

Post by flavo5000 » July 2nd, 2020, 2:05 pm

Alright folks! We're on day two and the OP has been updated! For anyone who's done a challenge I've hosted before, you know the drill. Please check your stats and make sure they're correct. I can get a little scattered at times and make mistakes.

User avatar
frbrown
Posts: 6231
Joined: Nov 01, 2011
Contact:

#70

Post by frbrown » July 2nd, 2020, 2:26 pm

Mochard wrote:
July 2nd, 2020, 5:59 am
Filmography Seen: Completed

Sergio Leone enters my Top Directors List in 8th position
He wasn't on the list before? Or does the list only include directors whose filmographies you've completed?

User avatar
Mochard
Posts: 2302
Joined: May 13, 2011
Location: California
Contact:

#71

Post by Mochard » July 2nd, 2020, 2:50 pm

frbrown wrote:
July 2nd, 2020, 2:26 pm
Mochard wrote:
July 2nd, 2020, 5:59 am
Filmography Seen: Completed

Sergio Leone enters my Top Directors List in 8th position
He wasn't on the list before? Or does the list only include directors whose filmographies you've completed?
My cut off is 6 films. Once I've seen 6 films by the director then they enter my top list. It's only on averages at the moment but it gives me an idea. If I haven't seen 6 films by a director then they miss out on the list. I may reduce it to 5 films but who knows. It's a constant work in progress.

User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 3321
Joined: Jul 10, 2014
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

#72

Post by flavo5000 » July 2nd, 2020, 3:37 pm

Mochard wrote:
July 2nd, 2020, 2:50 pm
frbrown wrote:
July 2nd, 2020, 2:26 pm
Mochard wrote:
July 2nd, 2020, 5:59 am
Filmography Seen: Completed

Sergio Leone enters my Top Directors List in 8th position
He wasn't on the list before? Or does the list only include directors whose filmographies you've completed?
My cut off is 6 films. Once I've seen 6 films by the director then they enter my top list. It's only on averages at the moment but it gives me an idea. If I haven't seen 6 films by a director then they miss out on the list. I may reduce it to 5 films but who knows. It's a constant work in progress.
Poor Jean Vigo... He'll never be on your list.

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 4742
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#73

Post by OldAle1 » July 2nd, 2020, 4:00 pm

1 - The Filmmaker Neil Breen, The Light of This World

Image

It's nice that some are kicking off this challenge with the Old Masters, but really what do they know compared to our Modern Geniuses? The Artist known to humankind as "Neil Breen" first graced us with His Genius in 2005, and has continued to challenge, thrill, excite, enervate, engorge, illuminate and engage our imaginations ever since in his five features which re-create cinema from the ground up. Lumière - Griffith - Eisenstein - Welles - Godard - Spielberg... and Breen. I actually have some deep knowledge of this Man that others I suspect lack - too much to really go into here (and I'm not at liberty to discuss everything I know, nor would I as it is probably not safe for humanity or for the Beings who will come after us, for whom The Artist Neil Breen is the first to pave the way. Suffice it to say that the simplest way to explain how "Neil Breen" became "The Artist Neil Breen", "The Filmmaker Neil Breen" or, dare I say it, "The Greater Angel of Our TIme Neil Breen", is to mention that he learned all he knows about filmmaking and Eastern philosophy from a two-week correspondence course on each, to which his Great Mind felt little need to focus much attention on. He had all he needed to know just from reading the catalogs, to put it in terms your simple minds might understand. If only we lesser mortals could accomplish so much with so little! Read on if your egos are strong enough...

General elements in common in these five masterpieces: acting of a quality that is not generally seen, perhaps has never been seen in the history of film. I suspect that the kinds of actors and performances Breen develops are related to his own mastery of the craft; while there are pieces of work here that are delightful and deep, meaningful and meaty, Breen does not want to take away from the powerful presence that he projects himself, and so finds humans somewhat less knowledgeable of the craft as we limited mortals have practiced it since Sophocles - he does not, then, look for "actors" but for "Neilers", whom he will shape, whom he will help to develop alongside him; sadly the demands of His kind of filmmaking have clearly been such that most of these apprentice Neilers have not continued along His path of Light and Darkness with Him. His films are all made in and around Las Vegas, which as everyone knows is the cultural capital of our earth - where else could he find both the desert landscapes and the neon delights and the aging ex-strippers who make up some of his most memorable cast-mates? He has a love of automobiles, typically painted black - Neil's color, the color of Night and the deeps from whence he came to our Earth - or red, the color of the cleansing fire which he might yet unleash us, if we don't succeed in the way He planned for us to. For this leads me to his great theme: the challenge to our world of greed, racism, corporate malfeasance, and environmental degradation. The Breen doesn't need to go into these problems in detail - he expects us to understand what some critics and small-minded viewers might term "extremely vague" and "mixed" messages. His characters often hold tokens - symbolizing our hold on experience, the past, the material, which his enormous knowledge of The Way will show are weaknesses, as indeed we will see in these masterworks time and again; he uses the symbols of twins, the double, and mirrors, much like the lesser, early, primitive master "A. Hitchcock", but his insights - expressed most potently in the title of his first film, in the fraternal twin hookers of I Am Here....Now, and the twinning of The Breen Himself in Twisted Pair. The Breen delights in showing his own body and those of young and beautiful women, though he is always discrete, knowing that his viewers have not the advanced understanding of our bodies and The Sex that he has attained in his Enlightenment.

Many thanks to the fine scholars at the Milwaukee School of Advanced B-Movie Studies, also known as RedLetterMedia, for alerting me to this still strangely under-known Humanoid from another Realm who has graced us all, and my first day of the new month - with I hope, a new understanding of this medium we love.

1. Double Down (2005)

Where Are You? Where Am I? You're Me.

In which Neil Breen somehow fights off the devastating depression caused by witnessing the fiancee he had proposed to literally seconds before, which they were naked together in a poll, being gunned down from afar, fights off this mortal blow in order to become the world's greatest computer hacker/assassin/anything else needed at the moment, and to save his beloved Las Vegas, or perhaps destroy it. Neil Breen can disguise himself, keep safe from electronic surveillance and prying eyes with force fields that kill - with innumerable laptops and cell phones - with many fake license plates - and with his incredible ability to look like a completely different human simply by exchanging blue jeans and a black tank top for black jeans and a blue shirt. Shot on film and with very few special effects, because even Neil Breen had to work his way up. A gold nugget talisman is his power. Or IS IT?

2. I Am Here....Now (2009)

In which Neil Breen first plays a character analogous to - and perhaps almost as mighty and lordly as Himself, a being who comes down to earth to lay waste to it's evil denizens...or save them. A being covered with computer hardware and needing to strip the clothes from a couple of strangers he meets, despite the fact that he can stop time and heal all wounds. Clearly those who understand Breenicism better than I will have answers to this and many other mysteries herein. Man - God - and Mummy Man coexist; the Healing of the Cripple (and de-aging to boot), who wanted only to see this, the Eiffel Tower or Taj Mahal of our time

Image

before he died. The theme of the Double. Drugs. Preparation for later greatness, and a God both Merciful, Loving and Vengeful to come (see #4).

3. Fateful Findings (2013)

In which Neil Breen loves and loses his life's partner at nine. A token - a black piece of plastic - keeps her alive for all these years; it is His genius that when he meets her again, she is still young and beautiful, much younger than he apparently, though of course if we have eyes to see we will notice much more below the surface of this middle-aged imperfect flesh. Felled by a Rolls Royce - the care, the blackness of death - Neil Breen, the writer, comes back to life, to search for Leah, the One. Many laptops, many cell phones. A party of five and then seven, full of distant voices which clearly do not belong; again, those with less advanced eyes for the viewing of Film and ears for the hearing of Words may see this (and every other moment of these 7 1/2 hours) as a "fault", but they have not seen the light. In the end, in this most romantic and nostalgic of Breen's work, he does - and perhaps they will. Closer to the old, dead, dry "narrative art" of cinema than any of his other work, and thus perhaps of less interest - only in comparison to these other landmarks of art, of course.

4. Pass Thru (2016)

In which Neil Breen revisits the landscapes, the dryness, the desert of Double Down... the Being at the center of I Am Here....Now. Many beginnings and endings, endings for 300 million of the Worst. Television, the idiot box. The bad people go away - Neil makes them go away - isn't this what we are looking for? Was Neil anticipating our current problem? It'll all just go away in the warmer weather. Neil knew even before The Donald (whose name graces one of the beautiful buildings of great Las Vegas as seen in Double Down). A jacket. The jacket earlier Neil Breen worse, a medal-covered jacket. Every medal. From the first film to this one, on the person of Someone Else. Who is he? Why? Refugees, drug mules, from the border. A tiger. A rare moment of Acting that is not of the Breen-world: Chaize Macklin (I think - Breen credits are sometimes as challenging as His work preceding them) as Kim, someone who might appear Elsewhere in Cinema - not of the Breen universe, not of his advanced purpose. Watch her to see a human of our world in Breen-world; it may be enlightening to you. A tiger, a tiger burning bright with the qualities of 1991 digital technology; part of being the Being (or "A.I.") is knowing when to call on the past, and Breen does so time and again, particularly in this film and the next. There is a reason, a profound reason, for the use of 30-year old technology here. It Is.

5. Twisted Pair (2018)

In which Neil Breen's development of the theme of the Double is brought to it's ultimate conclusion. "I miss what I never knew". Cale and Cade - but not Cain. The effects of Days Passed. I have it now. They bring us to the ultimate knowledge, that the Cinema itself has been the chief poisoner of our world. Images are needed, but not those images; we see what green screens of 1960s quality look like in a 2010s film, and we laugh, but those laughs will catch in our throats. Cale and Cade know, they are waiting in their lavender digital forest. "I'll Be Right Here", as Neil Breen does for Spielberg what he has done for Hitchock. Cale will return. Will we watch him? Will we listen? Will we learn?

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 9136
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#74

Post by sol » July 2nd, 2020, 4:07 pm

flavo5000 wrote:
July 2nd, 2020, 2:05 pm
Alright folks! We're on day two and the OP has been updated! For anyone who's done a challenge I've hosted before, you know the drill. Please check your stats and make sure they're correct. I can get a little scattered at times and make mistakes.
Re-post for your benefit: ;)

1. Bedroom Eyes (1984) William Fruet
2. Wedding in White (1972) William Fruet
3. Search and Destroy (1979) William Fruet

Image Image Image

Some well-made early career films from horror luminary William Fruet (Death Weekend; Killer Party; Trapped). The best of these was easily Wedding in White for my money, a frank and honest look at victim-blaming with regards to rape, topped off with a conclusion perhaps more haunting than anything in Fruet's horror output. Of the other two, I preferred the voyeurism-focused Bedroom Eyes, which plays against erotic thriller expectations (it's all about his reactions to what he is seeing, and his guilt, which leads to him getting a comeuppance as a murder suspect). Interestingly, I think the protagonist in Search and Destroy is wrongly suspected of murder too, but this was my least favourite of this trio. Didn't quite get why the police suspected him. Some nifty silent foot chase/cat-and-mouse scenes though.

And no, I am not planning to only watch Canadian directors for this Challenge. :unsure: This just seemed like an appropriate way to begin the month. Directors I am hoping to give focus to in July: Donner, Rodriguez, William Lustig, Tony Scott, Walter Hill... I have some pretty big viewing gaps for them.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
zuma
Donator
Posts: 2110
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Contact:

#75

Post by zuma » July 2nd, 2020, 6:53 pm

Carlos Saura

01 - The Delinquents/Los golfos (1960) 6/10
02 - The Garden of Delights/El jardín de las delicias (1970) 7/10
03 - Blindfolded Eyes/Los ojos vendados (1978) 7.5/10
04 - ¡Ay, Carmela! (1990) 6.5/10


Herschell Gordon Lewis

05 - 2,000 Maniacs (1964) 5/10
06 - Color Me Blood Red (1965) 6/10
07 - The Wizard of Gore (1970) 3/10
08 - The Gore Gore Girls (1972) 5/10

1-4: Carlos SauraShow

01 - The Delinquents/Los golfos (1960) 6/10
02 - The Garden of Delights/El jardín de las delicias (1970) 7/10
03 - Blindfolded Eyes/Los ojos vendados (1978) 7.5/10
04 - ¡Ay, Carmela! (1990) 6.5/10
5-8: Herschell Gordon LewisShow

05 - 2,000 Maniacs (1964) 5/10
06 - Color Me Blood Red (1965) 6/10
07 - The Wizard of Gore (1970) 3/10
08 - The Gore Gore Girls (1972) 5/10

User avatar
72aicm
Donator
Posts: 3267
Joined: Nov 13, 2016
Contact:

#76

Post by 72aicm » July 2nd, 2020, 7:12 pm

Quentin Tarantino:

1. Reservoir Dogs (1992) 10/10 (rewatch)
2. Four Rooms (1995) 5/10
3. Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (2019) 9/10 (rewatch)

User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 3321
Joined: Jul 10, 2014
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

#77

Post by flavo5000 » July 2nd, 2020, 7:54 pm

sol wrote:
July 2nd, 2020, 4:07 pm
flavo5000 wrote:
July 2nd, 2020, 2:05 pm
Alright folks! We're on day two and the OP has been updated! For anyone who's done a challenge I've hosted before, you know the drill. Please check your stats and make sure they're correct. I can get a little scattered at times and make mistakes.
Re-post for your benefit: ;)

1. Bedroom Eyes (1984) William Fruet
2. Wedding in White (1972) William Fruet
3. Search and Destroy (1979) William Fruet
Oops. My bad. It got lost in the rules discussion from yesterday. It'll be fixed in the next update.
And no, I am not planning to only watch Canadian directors for this Challenge. :unsure: This just seemed like an appropriate way to begin the month. Directors I am hoping to give focus to in July: Donner, Rodriguez, William Lustig, Tony Scott, Walter Hill... I have some pretty big viewing gaps for them.
I was planning to hit some of those same directors myself perhaps, paricularly Hill, Donner and maybe Rodriguez.

User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 3321
Joined: Jul 10, 2014
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

#78

Post by flavo5000 » July 2nd, 2020, 8:16 pm

OldAle1 wrote:
July 2nd, 2020, 4:00 pm
1 - The Filmmaker Neil Breen, The Light of This World
And next will you be taking on the director who has arguably taken up the mantle of the modern Hitchcock, that master of suspense and mystery known as James Nguyen, director of such bold cinema as Birdemic: Shock and Terror and Replica?

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 4742
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#79

Post by OldAle1 » July 2nd, 2020, 8:23 pm

flavo5000 wrote:
July 2nd, 2020, 8:16 pm
OldAle1 wrote:
July 2nd, 2020, 4:00 pm
1 - The Filmmaker Neil Breen, The Light of This World
And next will you be taking on the director who has arguably taken up the mantle of the modern Hitchcock, that master of suspense and mystery known as James Nguyen, director of such bold cinema as Birdemic: Shock and Terror and Replica?
I'm afraid not. My small brain and personality can only hold one Visionary at a time without bursting...Breen will have to settle while I challenge myself less with inferior mortals like Alvin Rakoff, Brett Kelly, Claude Jutra, Satyajit Ray and perhaps that cock guy... of course they're all going to seem like pretty much the same talentless guy now but this was my fault for starting out at the top.

psychotronicbeatnik
Donator
Posts: 1781
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Oregon
Contact:

#80

Post by psychotronicbeatnik » July 2nd, 2020, 9:16 pm

peeptoad wrote:
July 2nd, 2020, 9:37 am
psychotronicbeatnik wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 9:42 pm
peeptoad wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 12:41 pm

Excellent, thank you for the additional information on Rohmer's filmography. This is very intriguing stuff... since I already have access to the one set/cycle (Moral Tales) I am going to start there (there was actually a reason I chose some of these films to start with, other than the dvd set being very inexpensive), but I will be sure to watch them all, in sequence, in order to get the most out of them and retain the cohesion of the film cycle. For "run the director" this should fit well into my plan for the entire month (unless my free time dwindles again).
I hope you end up liking Rohmer, peeps. He's one of a small group of directors who have a nearly perfect run with me and I continue to revisit his films from time to time and find them just as moving and wonderful as always. I've got other plans for what i'm watching this month but I might revisit a lot of rohmer the next time the French challenge rolls around. I think starting with Moral Tales will work just fine. :cheers:
Thanks, 'beatnik! I am developing high hopes for Rohmer... I also hope you're hanging in there okay these days... haven't seen you around much lately. :cheers:
I've been around but very pre-occupied for the last month or so. The library I manage re-opened to the public and at the end of the month management of our libraries was finally taken back from the private company that managed us for the last 14 years and we became public employees again - with some great and some bad results. Anyway, it was (and still is) a very busy transition with lots of new databases and processes to learn. I've also been short one employee for two months now because we could not post the opening until we went public again. In short, it's been crazy.

But I did manage to watch 9 movies last month and will be posting them on my film log soon. They were all nearly turkey rated - prep for one of my favorite challenges! I was planning to do the 60s challenge, especially when you were planning on hosting, before all the other things happened.

:cheers:

Post Reply