Critical 20: Home Thread- The First Running

Okay, so I came up with this idea, Critical 20- An Exercise in Film Criticism 20- An Exercise in Film Criticism, and it was discussed and some people showed some interest and now we are embarking on a dry run, hopefully we Participants can show that this is not going to be an exercise in snipe, but a strong exercise in critical evaluations of films and film making.

A Moderator has been invited and kindly accepted the challenge of guiding us in a civil manner to critique the films that come before us and encourage us in this thoughtful process.

Odilonvert will be the Mod for this exercise, and from this point on, Critical 20 will be run by her.

Most of the ten Participants have submitted some words on the films they have decided to Champion in this tourniquetted version of this “game,” and Odi will be posting those at various times over the next week before she reveals the two films the two groups will be critiquing in the first round. The Championed films will make up a bulk of the films being viewed and critique here.

Real quick, one person had to drop out due to school and athletic commitments, and I wish Patapon well on his upcoming season and may he and his team see success, but it means we need at least one more person to take his spot.

So, please, any one interested, hit me or Odi up.

For those who are not Participating in this exercise, your comments are more than welcome, we just ask that you respect those who are taking part and help to encourage this process.

Odi, it’s all yours…

Thanks for the introduction, Uli!

Will be posting participant introductions over the next few days. Please all of you who are participating but have not yet submitted a few words to Uli about the film you are championing, send them to me by the end of this week.

And yes, I’ll echo Uli’s shout out for a participant to fill Patapon’s place. Come join in if you are interested in writing criticism.

Sorry – I haven’t written my thing yet!! I’ll have it to you this week – remind me if I forget again!!

I will! :D

Also can we quickly go over the flow of this game? I’m a little hazy on the details.

The game starts when I announce the films next week.

Prior to that I divide the participants into two groups. We do need one more to make the number even, we started with 10 and now we have 9.

So, Group A gets one film to discuss and debate and write about.

Group B gets the second film to do the same.

Voting to decide who wins in Group A and B.

Uli — tell me if I have this right so far. Then there’s a process of elimination, correct?

WHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!

And we’re off!

…sort of!

I second Jirin’s request to go over the flow of the game.

Ok, I’m copying and pasting, with some modifications, the rules and flow as UIi posted them initially. Uli please jump in and make corrections if necessary.

Let’s start with this part, the schedule:

For the “Game” to run its course, it will take at least 11 weeks, one week per film per group, with a schedule similar to what follows:

Week 1- 20 Participants are separated into two groups and each Participant submits the Film they choose to Champion, but the Moderator will open the “Game” with Wild Card Selections for both groups. There shall be a link provided to watch the film for those who have yet to see it, and each member will have one week to view the film. The Moderator will inform a Participant in each group that they shall be the first person to post their Critique midweek.

Week 2- On Saturday, the Moderator will start the Film Critique threads and the Participants have until the end of the day to post their Critique. Sunday is for further discussion open to the entire Mubi Community (yes, that is dangerous ground) and at a time revealed by the Moderator, the Participants can submit their votes for Least and Most successful arguments in a PM to the Moderator — Participants are Not allowed to vote for themselves at any time.

On Monday, the Moderator will reveal who has earned Immunity for the next round with their successful argument and reveal who has been Eliminated. With elimination, the film that Participant Championed will become the next film to be critiqued by the remaining Participants.

And the wheel keeps on spinning until Week 8.

Week 8- Immunity is gone and only a single vote will be made by the remaining eight Participants (four per group) for Least successful argument.

Week 10: Semi-Final- With two Participants left in each group, the two sides will merge for head-to-head contests. Each Participant will face off with a member from the other group, critiquing a film Championed by a Participant in the other Semi-Final. Important Note The voting for this round will be done by the 16 Participants already voted out.

Week 11: Final- The last two Participants will critique a Wild Card Selection made by the Moderator. Important Note The voting for this round will be done by the 18 Participants already voted out.

I think after 11 Weeks, the Ultimate Participant has earned a reward for their efforts and I will get a Plaque made with their name on it and the name of the Film they Championed and send it to them.

Now the rules/gist:

I am proposing a “Game” in which 10 members of the Mubi community (regular contributors to the site) critique specific films — one each championed by each Participant and two Wild Card selections — followed by discussion.

The votes will represent which two Participants in two separate groups of *five have produced the Least Successful argument in defending or condemning the represented film, and a second vote for which two Participants made the Most Successful argument. The Least Successful members will be dropped from the “Game,” while the two Most Successful will receive Immunity for the next round — until two members remain in each group. Once the groups have reached two members each, they will merge for two head-to-head contests, and then a final Critique for the two remaining Participants. For the final two rounds, all the Participants who were voted off will be allowed to vote. Important Note: The Moderator has all tie-breaking votes throughout the “Game”.*

Spirit of this game:

The idea behind the “Game” is to actually discuss films and film making in critical form, essay form, not just the “this film sucks,” or “this film is a masterpiece.” Participants should be able to articulate themselves about an art form they claim to love, they should be able to make an argument about the qualities of a film, or the lack of quality, in an effective and sound manner, they should be above the snipping we too often see, and they should respect not just the endeavor of the filmmakers represented in the films selected but also the thoughts of their fellow Participants — even in disagreement.

I would hope that the Participants can write effectively on all aspects of a film, from story to editing, cinematography to acting, score to costume design, etc, as a film is more than the director, but a collective working together in support of a project.

While there is a standard in Film Criticism and Film Theory, Participants may venture into their own style of criticism as long as they remember that the critique is about the film first, peripheral ideas second.

Odi has it right, I’ll write more when I’m back on my computer, I’m writing this on my phone and it takes forever.

EDIT — Week 1 should read 10, not 20, participants so:

Week 1- 10 Participants are separated into two groups and each Participant submits the Film they choose to Champion, but the Moderator will open the “Game” with Wild Card Selections for both groups. There shall be a link provided to watch the film for those who have yet to see it, and each member will have one week to view the film. The Moderator will inform a Participant in each group that they shall be the first person to post their Critique midweek.

So, this week this is my job:

a. Post the opening paragraph(s) about the films that each participant is going to champion, by way of introduction. Each participant will have sent me this paragraph(s) about their film written in their own words. We still need have participants who need to send me their paras, as I mentioned above initially, echoing Uli.

b.Announce the two groups — we need one more for them to be even — of five participants each.

c. Announce the films for each group, with links provided. Give all participants ONE week to watch the film.

d. Announce who is to submit their critique first for each team.

Following a week from the date the first films are announced, assuming we have 10 participants total, this is my job:

Ask all participants to submit critiques for the film assigned to them. They have till the end of their day to do so.

The next day, this is my job:

a.Open discussion up to the community.

The day after that, this is my job:

a.Announce who has won Most Successful Critique for each team, and Least Successful Critique for each team.The participant with the Least Successful Critique will be eliminated from the game. The person with the Most Successful Critique will submit links to watch the film they are going to champion, and the cycle starts all over again until two members remain on each team. Then we go to the rules that Uli stated above for the last few rounds.

Ideally we want to do this the way that Uli stated, a Monday through Sunday deal. The only thing is, it’s Tuesday now and we still don’t have one last participant to make the total 10, so I propose that we start the clock according to the Monday-Sunday schedule, and announce the first two wildcard films once we have 10 members.

Is that ok, Uli?

Apologies if my formatting is not perfect. I can’t edit my comments with the browser I’m in right now, and as always, my self-editing skills lose to my impatience to post what I have to say…

Odi, that was fantastic, only one thing: The next film viewed after the first elimination is the Film Championed by the Participant who was just Eliminated, that way we hope to keep those who may not be actively participating interested in the exercise.

And hopefully we gain one more participant by the end of this week and we can start on schedule this coming Monday.

Ah! Cool, that makes it interesting (but probably frustrating for the person just eliminated)!

Ha ha! :)

Thanks for clarifying, guys!

But Odi, it’s also great revenge

It’s obvious you’re a writer — you have imagination! :)

Ok, now I’ll start posting participant thoughts about the film they are sponsoring.

First up, Jirin:

Jirin — Freedom (Bartas)

Freedom is a film about a group of drug dealers who are attacked on their ship and wash up in the middle of the desert, with no food or water, and try to survive. There is very little dialog as none of them speak each others’ language. Visually expressive, short and concise, the film displays the emotional behavior of people under the specter of certain death. Background is not important, language is not important: The characters communicate emotionally in the present tense and try to stay connected with each other as they desperately try to resist the obvious conclusion of their predicament.

I chose Freedom not only because I think it should have been played in the DC, but also because it’s the film that turned me on to the idea that films should use the visual component of their medium to communicate ideas rather than just rely on dialog.

Then, Den:

Den (note change of film) – Skin Deep (Blake Edwards)

Skin Deep is a human and humane comedy about a second and third chances. An alcoholic writer has countless affairs with a spectrum of women that basically capture the fashion types of the 80s, a high fashion decade, while it makes fair observations about drinking and what it means to create something artistic.

I chose Skin Deep because the 80s were a great hodgepodge of styles and genres for Blake Edwards, whom I love, that ended on this high point. Skin Deep is a masterwork of acting and bitter wit, full of wonderful lines, like the bartender’s kind assessment of Ritter’s character, “a 42 year old shooting star in a galactic harem.” The film and Ritter’s performance were main reasons I wanted to try to become a writer.

Konrad’s:

Konrad — The Day Of The Beast (Álex de la Iglesia)

“The Day Of The Beast” is a spanish 90’s movie linking good, old satanic themes with humour driven social critique. In contrary to classic film studies on the subject of satan such as “Rosemary’s Baby” or “Possession”, Álex de la Iglesia’s work puts the gore and horror a little bit aside making use of a full blown comedy edge instead. His vision is an extraordinary one as on the screen he keeps a perfect harmony between social insights, visual gags and character’s psychology. The movie itself is a perfect example of a great screenplay, which has been squeezed to the bottom in the process of filmmaking!

I choose it due to my personal liking of director’s style, but I believe it’s one of not many pictures, which hold a great spiritual or social insight and still retain pure entertainment values… even if only for the trained viewer. In my opinion, it’s hard to jump over it’s tight acting, hilarious dialogues, very inspiring undercurrent and great cinematography. This movie rocks!

Dan’s:

Dan — Closer (Nichols)

Closer, directed by Mike Nichols from a screenplay by Patrick Marber (adapting his own play), is not your typical Hollywood love story, despite many of the trappings of one. There are the four beautiful movie-star leads, the classic meet-cutes (“Hello, stranger!” says Natalie Portman’s Alice to Jude Law’s Dan after she’s been hit by a taxi), and the constant reshuffling of romantic partners. But where most typical Hollywood love stories have a gooey chocolate heart at their center, Closer has a heart made of acid. Make no mistake, this is very much a love story, but it’s mostly about what happens after that love has curdled into something almost unrecognizable. Nichols, a veteran of the stage, does marvelous work with his four leads (nearly all of whom were cast against type), but he is also acutely aware that film and theater are two different mediums, and makes the most of that difference here.

I chose to champion Closer partly because I’ve been on a kick of stage-to-screen adaptations recently, but also because I think it’s a slightly underrated film. Nichols makes a lot of very smart directorial choices, and in doing so doesn’t let the play stagnate onscreen, as so many other directors have been content to do. Closer is difficult to sit through, because most of its scenes (from a brilliant adaptation by Marber) involve those hard, raw emotions surrounding the end of a relationship and the soul-searching that accompanies it. But for those with the stomach to sit through it, Closer offers a lot of food for thought about relationships and the awful things we humans will do to each other “in the name of love.” It’s also a film that, partly thanks to a closing-scene revelation, grows even more interesting on repeat viewings. This is a film with a lot to say about identity, art (and the people who make it), love, and loss.

WBA’s:

WBA — Morning Fog / Chen wu (Chia-yun Yang)

When I accidentally stumbled upon this internationally little known film starring Chinese megastar Brigitte Lin on Youtube, I was curious to know, how commercial Taiwanese cinema from the 70s looked and felt if you didn’t consider their martial-arts output. This was before the auteurist “New Wave” of the 80s. I discovered not only a genuine melodrama (that I personally find as insightful and interesting as any great melodrama from any country – and believe me, when I say “Morning Fog” feels familiar from the beginning, and doesn’t alter the old formula a iota), but that actually an earlier Brigitte Lin film (her first starring role) had in itself created a subgenre (or more correctly the dominant form of melodrama) of melodrama, with several dozen films just 10 years, that were all adapted from the works of Taiwanese writer Chiung Yao.

Ultimately I chose this film, because I believed that on the hand nobody of us is familiar with this phase in Taiwanese film history, while on the other hand everybody has probably seen dozens of similar films in their lifetime. Ultimately I was interested to see how other western people would react to this film, which is very commercial and (as an example of then dominant Genre Cinema) very relevenat to a country’s whole film industry during almost a decade, and also the result of a cultural phenomenon (Chiung Yao novels) that are sociologically interesting, while it could easily be dismissed as unsubstantial fluff. In short: I’d love to read how other western cinephiles will grapple with this film.

These are the people I need intros from, PLUS one more new person.

Drunken – Gummo

substitute for Patapon – ?

Max – Three Days of the Condor

Uli – Closet Land

Malik – Jin-Roh: The Wolf Brigade

Come on Mubians, jump in!

Here, here for having Odi as the moderator.

I wish I could join you guys but I’m stretched a bit thin at the moment—you know, butter over too much bread—and I’d hate to be the one guy who couldn’t come through on his commitment. But I’ll be watching and commentating. I’ve already seen several of these films.

Cool! Looking forward to hearing your comments when we get to those points where we (officially) open up the discussion to forum members (after criticisms are in and before voting).

May the bloodletting be thick and deep.

Just kidding.

But I AM looking forward to reading some damn good writing. :)

I’ll be getting on my graphs, still hoping we find a tenth Participant.

Bump!

Mysterious 10th participant, come out from within the shadows please! :)

Bump

We still have time, someone will decide to join.

Keeping my fingers crossed…