Match Cut Director Consensus - Andrei Tarkovsky

[Ezee E]

Rules & Results (http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=426)

http://history.sffs.org/i/GMPHOTOS/Tarkovsky.jpg
Андре́й Арсе́ньевич Тарко́вский


WIKI BIO:
Tarkovsky also worked extensively as a screenwriter, film editor, film theorist and theater director. He directed most of his films in the Soviet Union, with the exception of his last two films which were produced in Italy and Sweden. His films are characterized by Christian spirituality and metaphysical themes, extremely long takes, lack of conventional dramatic structure and plot, and memorable images of exceptional beauty. Despite seeing many of his films, and being bored by everyone, the thread creator wants to see more of his work.

His Top Ten:
Diary of a Country Priest and Mouchette by Robert Bresson
Winter Light, Wild Strawberries and Persona by Ingmar Bergman
Nazarin by Luis Buñuel
City Lights by Charlie Chaplin
Ugetsu by Kenji Mizoguchi
Seven Samurai by Akira Kurosawa
Woman in the Dunes by Hiroshi Teshigahara

Among his favorite directors were Luis Buñuel, Kenji Mizoguchi, Ingmar Bergman, Robert Bresson, Akira Kurosawa, Michelangelo Antonioni, Jean Vigo and Carl Theodor Dreyer.

Style:
Tarkovsky's films are characterised by Christian and metaphysical themes, extremely long takes, and memorable images of exceptional beauty. Recurring motifs in his films are dreams, memory, childhood, running water accompanied by fire, rain indoors, reflections, levitation, and characters re-appearing in the foreground of long panning movements of the camera.

Tarkovsky included levitation scenes into several of his films, most notably Solaris. To him these scenes possess great power and are used for its photogenic value and its magic inexplicability.[9] Likewise, water is also used by him for its photogenic value and its beauty, in particular in the form of brooks or running water.[10]

Tarkovsky developed a theory of cinema that he called "sculpting in time". By this he meant that the unique characteristic of cinema as a medium was to take our experience of time and alter it. Unedited movie footage transcribes time in real time. By using long takes and few cuts in his films, he aimed to give the viewers a sense of time passing, time lost, and the relationship of one moment in time to another.

Up to, and including, his film Mirror, Tarkovsky focused his cinematic works on exploring this theory. After Mirror, he announced that he would focus his work on exploring the dramatic unities proposed by Aristotle: a concentrated action, happening in one place, within the span of a single day.

Several of Tarkovsky's films are shot both in color and black and white, including for example Andrei Rublev which features an epilogue in color, and Solaris and Mirror, which feature several black and white sequences. In 1966, in an interview conducted shortly after finishing Andrei Rublev, Tarkovsky dismisses color film as a "commercial gimmick" and doubts that contemporary films meaningfully use color. He claims that in everyday life one does not consciously notice colors most of the time. Hence in film color should be used mainly to emphasize certain moments, but not all the time as this distracts the viewer. To him, films in color are like moving paintings or photographs, which are too beautiful to be a realistic depiction of life

[Kurosawa Fan]

Solaris - 4.0

[Izzy Black]

The Steamroller and the Violin 6
Ivan's Childhood 6
Andrei Rublev 10
Solyaris 7
The Mirror 6
Stalker 10
Nostalghia 8
The Sacrifice 6

[Boner M]

Ivan's Childhood - 7.5
Andrei Rublev - 10
Solaris - 8
Mirror - 8
Stalker - 9
Nostalghia - 9.5
The Sacrifice - 6.5

Rublev is the only one I've seen recently, though... oughta revisit him.

[dreamdead]

Andrei Rublev - 8
Solaris - 7
Mirror - 8.5
Stalker - 9
The Sacrifice - 9.5

Tarkovsky's been a bewildering director for me because his films are so leisurely paced that I'll invariably ending up breaking the films into chunks so that I can devote the proper attention to him. Yet, despite that reality, which likely isn't the best scenario for viewing, I refuse to hold that against him when grading since there's no other filmmaker that has crafted some of the awe-inspiring visuals and ideas that Tarkovsky covers in his films. And it's why I keep returning to his work despite the taxing nature of them. Stalker, which was watched most recently, is the film that's offered the least resistance to viewing conditions, and remains the most consistent and startling of his work.

[Mysterious Dude]

Ivan's Childhood - 6.5
Andrei Rublev - 4.0
Solaris - 7.0
The Mirror - 8.0

[Ezee E]

I have the same problems as dreamdead. I've even watched Solaris twice, but both times, it felt more work to watch it. Andrei Rublev definitely has something good about it, but its pace is just so tough to get by.

I like the visuals of Stalker and will probably give that a try, but may be done afterwards.

Ivan's Childhood - 5
Andrei Rublev - 6.5
Stalker - 6.5
Solaris - 3

[Izzy Black]

I think we all agree Tarkovsky is not much of an entertainer.

[Sven]

Andrei Rublev - 5
Stalker - 3
Solaris - 5
Nostalghia - eh... I won't lower the score of this one, because I honestly can't remember it much.
The Sacrifice - 10

[TripZone]

Well Solaris and Stalker both made me want to blow my brains out from tedium, despite clearly being brilliant (especially the latter). Therefore, I can only give them 6/10 each.

[Qrazy]

The Steamroller and the Violin - 7
Ivan's Childhood - 8.5
Andrei Rublev - 10
Solyaris - 8
The Mirror - 9
Stalker - 10
Voyage in Time - 7
Nostalghia - 8.5
The Sacrifice - 9

[Yxklyx]

Ivan's Childhood - 7
Andrei Rublev - 9
Solyaris - 8
Mirror - 8
Stalker - 7

[monolith94]

Ivan's Childhood – 10
Andrei Rublev – 10
Solyaris – 9
The Mirror – 10
Voyage in Time – 6

his short student film effort of remaking a short scene from The Killers sucked.

[Qrazy]

Ivan's Childhood – 10
Andrei Rublev – 10
Solyaris – 9
The Mirror – 10
Voyage in Time – 6

his short student film effort of remaking a short scene from The Killers sucked.

*is tempted to bump up scores to be biggest fan*

[Qrazy]

Ivan's Childhood - 7.5
Andrei Rublev - 10
Solaris - 8
Mirror - 8
Stalker - 9
Nostalghia - 9.5
The Sacrifice - 6.5

Rublev is the only one I've seen recently, though... oughta revisit him.

You should definitely give The Sacrifice another shot (I don't know when/where in his filmography you watched it) but bear in mind certain elements of his other work when/if you watch it again (not to say that you didn't the first time around)... namely the pan down the tree in the opening of Ivan, levitation and house burning in Mirror, micro/macrocosms and reconstructions in Solaris, etc... Tarkovsky's ouevre has a rare Proustian quality to it in that the semiotics of his films are all thoroughly intertwined (much more so than most other auteurs). Metaphoric visual instantiations are given renewed and varied meaning when analyzed between works as opposed to just within the work itself. His book ends or the pan down a tree to a boy in his first work contrasted with the pan away from a boy and up a barren tree in his final film is one example of the semiotic web he establishes.

[Derek]

Ivan's Childhood - 8.5
Andrei Rublev - 7.5
Solaris - 10.0
Mirror - 9.5
Stalker - 8.5
Nostalghia - 10.0
The Sacrifice - 7.0

[Spinal]

The Steamroller and the Violin - 7
Andrei Rublev - 6
Solaris - 6.5
The Mirror - 3.5
The Sacrifice - 4

[Benny Profane]

Solaris -- 4.5

[Raiders]

The Steamroller and the Violin (1961) 7.0
Ivan's Childhood (1962) 8.0
Andrei Rublev (1969) 7.5
Solaris (1972) 7.0
The Mirror (1975) 8.0
Stalker (1979) 9.5
Nostalghia (1983) 8.5
The Sacrifice (1986) 6.5

[Philosophe_rouge]

The Killers 5.5
Andrei Rublev 8.5

[Derek]

I think we all agree Tarkovsky is not much of an entertainer.

He's no Ivan Reitman.

[Boner M]

Fucking hell, this thread. Thank god I'm away for Cassavetes week (I'll still be posting... just glad I'll be having a fun time to ease the pain).

[Qrazy]

Fucking hell, this thread. Thank god I'm away for Cassavetes week (I'll still be posting... just glad I'll be having a fun time to ease the pain).

It certainly pains me to see Leigh's Naked receive 10's across the board and then see Andrei Rublev amass a number of 5's and 6's... which is not to say I'm not a fan of Naked.

[soitgoes...]

Solaris - 8.0

[Qrazy]

The Killers 5.5


Why/how did you see this?

[Philosophe_rouge]

Why/how did you see this?

It's part of the Criterion edition of the Killers that also includes the 1946 and 1964 version. Honestly though, probably wouldn't have watched it if I didn't do a very loose adaptation of the Killers for a short film project.

[Qrazy]

It's part of the Criterion edition of the Killers that also includes the 1946 and 1964 version. Honestly though, probably wouldn't have watched it if I didn't do a very loose adaptation of the Killers for a short film project.

Ooh looks like I'll be renting that then. I really like Siodmak's and haven't seen Siegel's.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Ooh looks like I'll be renting that then. I really like Siodmak's and haven't seen Siegel's.
Siodmark's is EASILY the best of the three, honestly, Siegel's was almost unwatcheable. Seeing Reagan as a bad guy is interesting for a whole three seconds, and Lee Marvin is very good. But it's really just an average action film from the 1960s.

[Qrazy]

Siodmark's is EASILY the best of the three, honestly, Siegel's was almost unwatcheable. Seeing Reagan as a bad guy is interesting for a whole three seconds, and Lee Marvin is very good. But it's really just an average action film from the 1960s.

Stylistically I've been pretty underwhelmed by Siegel so far (Escape from Alcatraz and Dirty Harry).

[Philosophe_rouge]

Stylistically I've been pretty underwhelmed by Siegel so far (Escape from Alcatraz and Dirty Harry).
This won't impress you, still the only great film of his I've seen is Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

[Weeping_Guitar]

Ivan's Childhood - 8.5
Solaris - 7.5

[Duncan]

Ivan's Childhood - 7.5
Andrei Rublev - 10
Solyaris - 7.5
The Mirror - 10
Stalker - 9
Nostalghia - 9
The Sacrifice - 9.5

[Sven]

I thought Siegel's was the best of the three. Oh, and I'd forgotten about Tarkovsky's bit on there. I remember watching it, but cannot for the life of me recall it. Will rewatch it by the weekend.

[origami_mustache]

The Killers - 7
There Will Be No Leave Today - 7.5
The Steamroller and the Violin - 8
Ivan's Childhood - 9.5
Andrei Rublev - 10
Solyaris - 10
The Mirror - 10
Stalker - 10
Nostalghia - 9
The Sacrifice - 9.5

[Melville]

Ivan's Childhood - 7.5
Andrei Rublev - 10
Solyaris - 10
The Mirror - 10
Stalker - 7
Nostalghia - 8.5
The Sacrifice - 9

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

The Killers - 7.5
There Will Be No Leave Today - 6
Steamroller and the Violin - 8
Ivan's Childhood - 9.5
Andrei Rublev - 10
Solaris - 9.5
Mirror - 8.5
Stalker - 9
Nostalghia - 9
Voyage in Time - 7
Offret - 10

seen it all.

[NickGlass]

I've heard some pretty good things about this guy.

Solaris: 7.0
Stalker: 8.5

[Ezee E]

The Stalker DVD has separated the movie into parts, and its weirdly done, but appropriate.

I'm curious to see what happens when they get into the zone.

Tarkovsky can frame a movie like no other, and there has been some fantastic shots in this movie. The arrival of the diesel train, allowing for an escape, is particularly eye-opening, as well as the entrance into the zone.

So far, so good.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, it doesn't change too much from there.

Much like Andrei Rublev, it's technically masterful, but it feels like work to watch it.

Andrei. We're done.

[Boner M]

but it feels like work to watch it.
Wrong thread.

[Ezee E]

Wrong thread.
Pet peeve for others I'm sure. I guess nearly three hours of thoughts on philosophy just doesn't do it for me. Especially just after an escape from Russian soldiers while being shot at.

Or better yet... Meh!

[Sycophant]

Stalker 8.5

[SirNewt]

Fucking hell, this thread. Thank god I'm away for Cassavetes week (I'll still be posting... just glad I'll be having a fun time to ease the pain).

It's OK, I'm pretty sure they're all going to hell anyway.

1. Andrei Rublev 10
2. Solaris 9

it's been too long for some of the others. How long do these usually go?

BTW, I gave Sidmark's a 6. Am I missing something?

[Ezee E]

it's been too long for some of the others. How long do these usually go?


The movies or the consensus itself?

[SirNewt]

The movies or the consensus itself?

The Tarkovsky part of the consensus. How long before these votes are tallied?

[soitgoes...]

The Tarkovsky part of the consensus. How long before these votes are tallied?
It's done weekly. Every Sunday a new one begins.

[Teh Sausage]

Andrei Rublev (1969) - 8.5
Solaris (1972) - 7.0
The Mirror (1975) - 8.0
Stalker (1979) - 9.5
The Sacrifice (1986) 8.0

[Ezee E]

The Tarkovsky part of the consensus. How long before these votes are tallied?
And if you see a movie of his later, just put it in the main consensus thread, and I'll get to it.

[SirNewt]

Cool, I'm going to rewatch a few before I rate them.

[Yxklyx]

The Tarkovsky part of the consensus. How long before these votes are tallied?

To keep in spirit we shouldn't tally this one until 2009.

[SirNewt]

To keep in spirit we shouldn't tally this one until 2009.

I assume you're referring to the deliberate pacing of Tarkovsky's films. Ha, ha, mister last great film seen '8 1/2'.

[Stay Puft]

The Steamroller and the Violin - 5
Andrei Rublev - 7.5
Solaris - 8.5
The Mirror - 6.5
Stalker - 9

[dreamdead]

Halfway through The Sacrifice. I hope to finish it tonight/midafternoon tomorrow.

[dreamdead]

Edited in rating for The Sacrifice on the first page.

[Ezee E]

RESULTS:
1. Nostalghia - 8.89 (9)
2. Andrei Rublev - 8.4 (20)
3. Stalker - 8.28 (18)
4. Mirror - 8.22 (16)
5. The Sacrifice - 8.04 (13)
6. Ivan's Childhood - 7.92 (14)
7. Solaris - 7.36 (25)
8. Steamroller and the Violin - 6.86 (7)

-There Will Be No Leave Today - 6.75 (2)
-Voyage in Time - 6.67 (3)

= 7.99


BIGGEST FAN: Origami_mustache
MOST DEDICATED: Kurious Jorge completed his filmography
BIGGEST HATER: Ezee E

[Spinal]

So, short films are being counted now?

[Ezee E]

So, short films are being counted now?
I never looked up the runtime on The Killers. I figured it was over 30 mins.

It does not qualify.

Good catch.

[MacGuffin]

Why aren't short movies counted exactly? Do movies of full length have some sort of superiority?

[Sycophant]

Why aren't short movies counted exactly? Do movies of full length have some sort of superiority?
Yes. For one, they're real movies.

[MacGuffin]

Yes. For one, they're real movies.

Wow, you're kidding, right?

[MacGuffin]

Yes. For one, they're real movies.

Anyways, since you haven't responded in almost two hours, I assume this is either a bad joke or an attempt to get a rise, because I can't believe someone could be unintelligent enough to think this is actually true.

[origami_mustache]

It would be nice to see more short programs in theaters, aside from just the festivals and Oscar shorts.

[Sycophant]

Anyways, since you haven't responded in almost two hours, I assume this is either a bad joke or an attempt to get a rise, because I can't believe someone could be unintelligent enough to think this is actually true.The former.

I can't remember why shorts were restricted from tallying. Because they are in fact underseen? Because we start getting into whether or not we should include commercials, music videos, and television shows? The addition of which could skew what would generally be considered a director's canon?

[MacGuffin]

The former.

I can't remember why shorts were restricted from tallying. Because they are in fact underseen? Because we start getting into whether or not we should include commercials, music videos, and television shows? The addition of which could skew what would generally be considered a director's canon?

Me neither. It may be because certain directors have so many, but that's just lazy of whoever came up with the rule if you'd ask me because a movie is a movie.

[Qrazy]

The former.

I can't remember why shorts were restricted from tallying. Because they are in fact underseen? Because we start getting into whether or not we should include commercials, music videos, and television shows? The addition of which could skew what would generally be considered a director's canon?

Yeah I think tallying-wise they're best left not included.

[MacGuffin]

Yeah I think tallying-wise they're best left not included.

Oh, do leave us in suspense! :rolleyes:

[soitgoes...]

Yeah I think tallying-wise they're best left not included.So when we get to Resnais we should leave out Night and Fog? That's gonna kill his consensus. Or do we pick certain short films to make exceptions? That seems against the one of the basic ideas behind this. I think that shorts can be just as intriguing and powerful as feature length films.

[Winston*]

We used Un Chien Andalou for the Buenel consensus if I remember correctly.

[soitgoes...]

As well as Chaplin and Keaton shorts. This isn't my thing obviously, but my opinion is that we shouldn't limit ourselves to only feature films.

[Ezee E]

I don't even remember the reason why we didn't use shorts at the very beginning. I think it was because you'd start getting to use "Bad" for Martin Scorsese, and so on, which I do agree with in that aspect.

We decided that if it was over 30 minutes, it would work. For Resnais, Night and Fog does certainly count. When we get to D.W. Griffith, I'll probably let anything count.

[transmogrifier]

I blind bought Andrei Rublev roughly three years ago. I still haven't seen it.

[Epistemophobia]

The Killers - 7
There Will Be No Leave Today - 8
The Steamroller and the Violin - 8.5
Ivan's Childhood - 9.5
Andrei Rublev - 9
Solaris - 9.5
The Mirror - 9
Stalker - 10
Voyage in Time - 7.5
Nostalgia - 9.5
The Sacrifice - 8.5

[Qrazy]

Oh, do leave us in suspense! :rolleyes:

Think how they would skew the results for director's with tons of shorts vs. those without and think how they would skew results given that we haven't been including them all along. This isn't advanced calculus. There's a reason every single festival circuit and consensus poll groups features and shorts into different categories.

[Izzy Black]

So when we get to Resnais we should leave out Night and Fog? That's gonna kill his consensus. Or do we pick certain short films to make exceptions? That seems against the one of the basic ideas behind this. I think that shorts can be just as intriguing and powerful as feature length films.

Not to mention particulars - like Lo Sguardo di Michelangelo as a late work for Antonioni.

[Izzy Black]

Think how they would skew the results for director's with tons of shorts vs. those without and think how they would skew results given that we haven't been including them all along. This isn't advanced calculus. There's a reason every single festival circuit and consensus poll groups features and shorts into different categories.

This is not a consensus poll of best feature-length films and best short-length films though. Nor is it a festival circuit where we choose whether we want to watch features or shorts. It is a directorial consensus. There is a big difference. So much so, that guys like Brakhage and Tscherkassky would be otherwise segregated from feature-length filmmakers.

[Qrazy]

This is not a consensus poll of best feature-length films and best short-length films though. Nor is it a festival circuit where we choose whether we want to watch features or shorts. It is a directorial consensus. There is a big difference. So much so, that guys like Brakhage and Tscherkassky would be otherwise segregated from feature-length filmmakers.

Too bad so sad, there's already a set standard that now has to be followed if the results are to mean anything. The solution if the entire consensus were started again would be to separate the scores of the shorts vs feature lengths (but include both) so as not to skew results but remain inclusive.

[Ezee E]

I'd kill myself if I had to tally Brakhage's films.

[Izzy Black]

Too bad so sad, there's already a set standard that now has to be followed if the results are to mean anything.

Nice response - except I am not crying here, nor does it account for your poor defense. Just because things are done a certain way, that does not mean they should be.

[Izzy Black]

I'd kill myself if I had to tally Brakhage's films.

Well, according this poll, he does not exist as a director.

I should note, I am merely adding my thoughts on the discussion here. I have no anticipation things will change. I came in and read some responses and put in my reply.

[Qrazy]

I think that shorts can be just as intriguing and powerful as feature length films.

That's not really what is at issue.

[Qrazy]

Nice response - except I am not crying here, nor does it account for your poor defense. Just because things are done a certain way, that does not mean they should be.

It means everything would have to be started over again for the purposes of this consensus. You don't change the rules in the middle of the game.

You start a new game with new rules if you don't like the rules of the first game.

[Izzy Black]

The solution if the entire consensus were started again would be to separate the scores of the shorts vs feature lengths (but include both) so as not to skew results but remain inclusive.

That's fine. I am not really commenting about that. I was discussing the merit of including shorts in a directorial poll to begin with, which your prior post suggested it was best separated.

[Izzy Black]

Yes it does genius it means everything would have to be started over again for the purposes of this consensus.

No - half-wit - it does not account for this:


There's a reason every single festival circuit and consensus poll groups features and shorts into different categories.

It's called a non-sequitur. This has nothing to do with polling for directorial consensus. And having to start over does not address the dubiousness of this claim.

[Qrazy]

No - half-wit - it does not account for this:


There's a reason every single festival circuit and consensus poll groups features and shorts into different categories.

It's called a non-sequitur. This has nothing to do with polling for directorial consensus. And having to start over does not address the dubiousness of this claim.

First of all that was one point amidst a series of points in a post of which you quoted the entire text including initial tallying remarks, so it's reasonable to assume you're also responding and/or taking those into account... that aside...

Not really, nothing about a directorial consensus says it has to be all inclusive. Some consensuses might decide not to include student works or certain collaborative projects where the director was pulled off the work, etc. It is the consensus makers decision and perhaps they were willing to sacrifice purely short film filmmakers in order to preserve what they feel to be more credible consensus results (vs. then having to choose to include commercials, music videos, etc.) A director's consensus is the same as a general film poll except that the grouping mechanism varies. We are still comparing total scores. If you include shorts in either case the scores vary and skew the results.

[MacGuffin]

If you include shorts in either case the scores vary and skew the results.

Uh, what? Because they're not movies also or something?

[Ezee E]

Israfel just insulted someone. I didn't know that could happen.

[soitgoes...]

It means everything would have to be started over again for the purposes of this consensus. You don't change the rules in the middle of the game.

You start a new game with new rules if you don't like the rules of the first game.
But the rules did change mid-game awhile back. Keaton's and Chaplin's shorts were allowed. Why just their's? Your argument doesn't fly. That's my problem. If you make exceptions for some, what is it that differentiates them from others. Why are Keaton shorts more important than Resnais? His first 20 or so films are all shorts. Ezee said he'd probably allow Griffith's shorts too. This is my problem. But again, this is his deal so he can make the rules as he sees fit. I'm just vocalizing my opinion.

[MacGuffin]

We should just vote. :twisted:

[Ezee E]

How about this... If it's convenient for me to allow shorts, I will allow it. If not, fuck y'all. Deal with it.

Damn, what I'd do if I was a mod.

[Mysterious Dude]

Shorts count in the yearly consensuses, so why not the director consensuses?

[DavidSeven]

The original intent of these threads was to gauge the overall opinion, within this community, of certain directors. Now, if a director made a few really great four-minute shorts and one clunker feature, would he have the same reputation, within this forum, as someone who made four really great features and one really crappy short? Whether this distinction is merited or not, the honest answer is "no." Without the rules that are in place, the two directors would receive similar overall ratings, which goes against what is attempted to be measured in these consensus polls.

[soitgoes...]

How about this... If it's convenient for me to allow shorts, I will allow it. If not, fuck y'all. Deal with it.

Damn, what I'd do if I was a mod.
So we aren't able to discuss this? I've stated twice that I'm only stating my opinion on the matter. You obviously can do what you'd like.

[Qrazy]

But the rules did change mid-game awhile back. Keaton's and Chaplin's shorts were allowed. Why just their's?

Oh, I didn't know that and didn't understand that's what you meant in your initial post concerning them. In that case anything goes.

[Qrazy]

Uh, what? Because they're not movies also or something?

I didn't say they skew the results negatively (that would depend on the director), they just skew the results. When you enter in another variable the results will vary.

[Raiders]

I guess I should comment since it was my rule. I created it because I figured most people would likely not have seen whatever few short films most of the original list of directors would have made and it thus made ballots cleaner and easier to tally. I also feel that by and large short films are different beasts than feature-length films. Of course, directors known for their short films should have them counted (such as Chaplin, Keaton and of course, Brakhage). But my own feelings were only second to the fact that I was just looking to excise a few films that would likely be outliers amongst the majority anyway and to make tallying not such a laborious process for those few completists mosts popular directors have.

[Ezee E]

I guess I should comment since it was my rule. I created it because I figured most people would likely not have seen whatever few short films most of the original list of directors would have made and it thus made ballots cleaner and easier to tally. I also feel that by and large short films are different beasts than feature-length films. Of course, directors known for their short films should have them counted (such as Chaplin, Keaton and of course, Brakhage). But my own feelings were only second to the fact that I was just looking to excise a few films that would likely be outliers amongst the majority anyway and to make tallying not such a laborious process for those few completists mosts popular directors have.
Kind of what I said, only nicer.

:)

[Izzy Black]

First of all that was one point amidst a series of points in a post of which you quoted the entire text including initial tallying remarks, so it's reasonable to assume you're also responding and/or taking those into account... that aside...

Yes, you made several points, and I responded only to the points that I was specifically concerned with. I could have edited down my quoted text of you to make it perfectly clear, but if you read my post, you should be able to gather rather evidently that I was only discussing the latter comments in your post.


Not really, nothing about a directorial consensus says it has to be all inclusive.

Nothing about it says it should be particularly exclusive either. Ipso facto it at least entails a director's most notable, available, and significant works - short or otherwise.


Some consensuses might decide not to include student works or certain collaborative projects where the director was pulled off the work, etc.

Which ones? Are we discussing a director's actual greatness or a director's relative greatness in specific mediums? A director of cinema should entail all of her authorial works. We might as well start separating video from film. I think there is more difference between video and film than shorts and features.


It is the consensus makers decision and perhaps they were willing to sacrifice purely short film filmmakers in order to preserve what they feel to be more credible consensus results (vs. then having to choose to include commercials, music videos, etc.)

Yes, and I am willing to contend or offer my thoughts to those makers on their definition of credible.


A director's consensus is the same as a general film poll except that the grouping mechanism varies. We are still comparing total scores. If you include shorts in either case the scores vary and skew the results.

The grouping mechanism should entail a director's directed works. You have talked a lot about "skewing" the results. I can see it possibly in starting mid-term, but I do not see how in both cases the results are skewed. You have been incredibly equivocal and ambiguous on exactly why we ought to separate shorts from features, and moreover, why a directorial consensus would be grouped up as such.

[Izzy Black]

I guess I should comment since it was my rule. I created it because I figured most people would likely not have seen whatever few short films most of the original list of directors would have made and it thus made ballots cleaner and easier to tally.

It is easier to tally, I agree, but if a given short does not get enough tallys, then why would it matter in terms of actual representation? The point is to be accurate, if that is something of interest. I realize the poll is far more general than I would prefer it, but there is an argument for the other side to be had here.


I also feel that by and large short films are different beasts than feature-length films. Of course, directors known for their short films should have them counted (such as Chaplin, Keaton and of course, Brakhage). But my own feelings were only second to the fact that I was just looking to excise a few films that would likely be outliers amongst the majority anyway and to make tallying not such a laborious process for those few completists mosts popular directors have.

Different, yes, but the question is, should they be excluded from their fellow feature-length filmmakers? I am not sure how different they are at the end of the day, especially when we consider feature-length ensemble short films.

[Izzy Black]

Israfel just insulted someone. I didn't know that could happen.

Not one of my finer moments. Do forgive.

[Winston*]

I have kind of a personal stake in short films being included as I am imcapable of viewing a movie without it having being previously rated in a Match Cut Director's Consensus. My brain can't handle it, I put in the DVD and instantly get a huge migraine and have to go lie down.

[Qrazy]

Yes, you made several points, and I responded only to the points that I was specifically concerned with. I could have edited down my quoted text of you to make it perfectly clear, but if you read my post, you should be able to gather rather evidently that I was only discussing the latter comments in your post.

Nothing about it says it should be particularly exclusive either. Ipso facto it at least entails a director's most notable, available, and significant works - short or otherwise.

Which ones? Are we discussing a director's actual greatness or a director's relative greatness in specific mediums? A director of cinema should entail all of her authorial works. We might as well start separating video from film. I think there is more difference between video and film than shorts and features.

Yes, and I am willing to contend or offer my thoughts to those makers on their definition of credible.

The grouping mechanism should entail a director's directed works. You have talked a lot about "skewing" the results. I can see it possibly in starting mid-term, but I do not see how in both cases the results are skewed. You have been incredibly equivocal and ambiguous on exactly why we ought to separate shorts from features, and moreover, why a directorial consensus would be grouped up as such.

Lately I haven't had the stamina I once had for these types of verbose and protracted arguments (both here and Brokeback) so I'll just let you have the last word on both. If I didn't make the second instance of skew more explicit it's because I felt others had already voiced the reasons clearly enough.

[Raiders]

It is easier to tally, I agree, but if a given short does not get enough tallys, then why would it matter in terms of actual representation? The point is to be accurate, if that is something of interest. I realize the poll is far more general than I would prefer it, but there is an argument for the other side to be had here.

Well, we tally all the films listed even if they fail to get enough votes to be included in the final list. Plus, there at one time were as many as sixty lists and it was difficult to always peel through each list and find a particular film, so the less necessary films, the easier.




Different, yes, but the question is, should they be excluded from their fellow feature-length filmmakers?

They're not excluded. Filmmakers known for their short films get a week just like everyone else.